Steven Probyn v Sahr Noordin
[2023] EWHC 3314 (KB)
Nicola Morgan-Rowe v Laura Woodgate
27 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2375 (KB)
High Court
Two drivers crashed. The judge said one driver had to pay for the other's car repairs and rental car. The losing driver appealed, saying the other driver had enough money to pay for everything herself. The appeal court disagreed because the judge looked at whether the other driver could have reasonably paid upfront without using her savings, not if she had enough savings to cover everything after the fact. The appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Road traffic accident on 9 December 2019 between Claimant (Laura Woodgate) and Defendant (Nicola Morgan-Rowe).
- •Recorder found 50% contributory negligence, awarding Claimant £14,861.18 damages and £13,680 costs.
- •Major dispute centered on credit hire charges (£25,830.72 claimed, £9,053.28 spot rate).
- •Claimant asserted impecuniosity, but Defendant argued she had £12,000 in an ISA.
- •Defendant raised new arguments on appeal not present in initial grounds.
- •Appeal court considered whether Claimant should have been debarred from relying on impecuniosity due to insufficient disclosure and whether the repair period should be reduced.
Legal Principles
Claimant in an RTA is entitled to reasonable credit hire charges if impecunious (unable to pay upfront without unreasonable sacrifice).
Lagden v O'Connor [2004] 1 AC 1067; Diriye v Bojaj [2020] EWCA Civ 1400
Claimant must plead and prove impecuniosity to justify credit hire rates.
Zurich Insurance PLC v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357
Appellate court cautious about new points on appeal necessitating new evidence or altering trial conduct.
Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360
An appeal notice may not be amended without permission of the appeal court.
CPR r 52.17
Court may order disclosure against non-parties if necessary for fair disposal or cost savings.
CPR r 31.17
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Recorder's decision to not debar the Claimant for disclosure failure was correct; Claimant complied with the order, and the Defendant had the opportunity to seek third-party disclosure but did not.
Defendant's new argument on repair period was disallowed.
New argument violated CPR r 52.17 (amendment of appeal notice), contradicted trial conduct (period conceded), and would have necessitated new evidence.
Recorder's finding of impecuniosity upheld.
Recorder's assessment considered the reasonableness of using ISA funds at the time of the accident, not with hindsight. The uncertainty of repair duration and the Claimant's significant mortgage obligation justified the decision.