Dermot Joseph Doyle v HDI Global Speciality SE
[2023] EWHC 2722 (KB)
Carl Nash v Volskwagen Financial Services (UK) Limited
21 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2326 (KB)
High Court
A car caught fire. Two experts couldn't agree on the cause. The judge said the car owner didn't prove it was the car's fault, and the appeals court agreed. The judge didn't have to pick a favorite cause; he just had to decide if the owner proved their case, which they didn't.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Nash's SEAT Leon car caught fire on February 24, 2020, a few weeks after he reported a noise.
- •The car was deemed a total loss.
- •Expert reports from both Mr. Dabek (for the claimant) and Dr. Tompsett (for the defendant) could not definitively determine the cause of the fire.
- •Mr. Dabek suggested a vehicle defect, while Dr. Tompsett proposed a discarded cigarette as the more likely cause.
- •The Recorder dismissed Mr. Nash's claim, finding he failed to prove a vehicle defect caused the fire.
Legal Principles
In causation cases with competing explanations, the claimant must prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
Rhesa Shipping Co S.A. v Edmunds (The Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 958
A judge is not bound to choose between competing explanations; they can conclude the claimant hasn't discharged the burden of proof if the evidence leaves them in doubt.
Rhesa Shipping Co S.A. v Edmunds (The Popi M) [1985] 1 WLR 958
Appeals against findings of fact require demonstrating a flaw in the judge's reasoning, such as a gap in logic or failure to account for material factors.
Re Sprintroom [2019] EWCA Civ 932
If a judge prefers one expert's evidence, they must provide reasons for doing so, especially if the preferred evidence wasn't challenged.
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377; English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 605
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Recorder's approach, while not following the two-stage analysis initially proposed, was legally permissible. He adequately considered the evidence, expressed concerns about the claimant's expert, and provided sufficient reasons for his conclusion that the claimant hadn't proven their case on the balance of probabilities.