Nicola Morgan-Rowe v Laura Woodgate
[2023] EWHC 2375 (KB)
Steven Probyn v Sahr Noordin
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3314 (KB)
High Court
A car accident led to a dispute over the cost of a replacement car. The judge let the injured person claim the full cost even though they didn't provide enough proof they couldn't afford a cheaper car. The appeal court said the judge was wrong, lowering the cost to what a cheaper car would have cost for a short time.
Key Facts
- •Road traffic accident on 16 December 2016 caused by the Defendant's negligent driving.
- •Claimant suffered injuries (headaches, pain in leg, arm, shoulder, neck, back) and claimed for personal injury and credit hire charges (£16,686.62).
- •Recorder dismissed personal injury claim due to concerns about Claimant's credibility but awarded credit hire charges.
- •Claimant's Reply to Defence was deemed inadequate, failing to provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity as ordered.
- •Claimant worked for Jardine Motors Group, a large automotive retailer, and had a salary sacrifice scheme providing a company car (£310/month).
- •Claimant continued paying £310/month after the accident despite not having a car, and hired a vehicle through Accident Exchange.
- •The appeal concerns the Recorder's decision to allow the credit hire claim despite the inadequate Reply and lack of sufficient evidence of impecuniosity.
Legal Principles
A claimant in an RTA claim is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of hiring a replacement vehicle; reasonableness is assessed by reference to need, rate, and duration. A claim for higher credit hire rates usually depends on demonstrating impecuniosity.
Lagden v O’Connor [2014] 1 AC 1067; Zurich Insurance PLC v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357
In credit hire claims, a claimant who needs to rely on impecuniosity must plead and prove it.
Zurich Insurance PLC v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357
Pleadings are a condition precedent to advancing a case; they should set out matters clearly and not contain hidden arguments.
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP-v- Beneficial House (Birmingham) Regeneration LLP [2021] EWHC 3458
A court's case management powers should not be lightly interfered with.
Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v. Fergies Properties SA [2014] EWCA 506
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's finding of fact unless compelled to do so; however, a finding of fact made after an unfair trial can be overturned.
A party must give a full and frank disclosure of all the facts in support of their claim.
Diriye v. Bojaj [2021] 1 WLR 1277
Adequate reasons must be given for judicial decisions, particularly where there's conflicting evidence.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 W.L.R. 249 CA
The burden is on the defendant to prove that the claimant could have hired a comparable vehicle at a basic hire rate.
Bent v. Highways and Utilities Construction [2011] EWCA Civ 1384
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Recorder erred in allowing the Claimant to rely on impecuniosity despite the inadequate Reply and lack of sufficient evidence, thereby creating an unfair trial. The court should have either refused relief from sanctions or granted relief and proceeded fairly.
Credit hire claim reduced to £1,754.20 (28 days at basic hire rate).
Given the finding against impecuniosity, and the Claimant's ability to obtain a replacement vehicle within a few days, a 28-day period at the basic hire rate was deemed appropriate.