Ryan Baird was an employee of MELS. He had been given the company van and was authorised to drive it. On the night of the accident in question during this case, Mr.Baird allowed his 17 year old brother to drive the company van and he climbed in as a passenger. His brother was not an employee of MELS and it was his first time ever to drive a vehicle on a public road. Mr. Baird was claiming compensation for serious injuries that he received from the accident that happened on that night. He was claiming £1 million from MELS' car insurer, Aioi Insurance. But, unfortunately for him the RTA ruled in favour of the insurer.

The insurance policy that MELS purchased for the vehicle in question covered the vehicle and its driver under the following conditions: the driver was at least 25 years old, the driver held a valid drivers licence, and MELS had given the driver permission to drive the vehicle.

The judgement took into consideration s151(4), the law on excluded liability which is "a liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, or damage to the property of any person who, at the time of the use which gave rise to the liability, was allowing himself to be carried in or upon the vehicle and knew or had reason to believe that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken".

Once Mr. Baird gave the vehicle to his brother to drive it was as if he had now stolen it for his own use, it was no longer under the control of MELS and the conditions stipulated in the insurance policy. The ruling went on to say that Mr. Baird, if he applied his mind, would have seen that his brother driving the vehicle was unlawful and in taking into consideration excluded liability; the judgement stated that Aioi Insurance was excluded from liability for Mr. Baird's injuries.