Dispute over duration of Hire—Court Holds no nexus between accident and Hire Period
Summary
This was an appeal by the Defendant against the decision of the District Judge to award the Plaintiff the full hire invoice claimed in the sum of £4,278.17. The substance of the Defendant’s appeal was in respect of the duration of hire. Mr Justice McCloskey found that the stimulus for the Plaintiff hiring a vehicle was a defect with his own vehicle that was not caused by the subject accident. Therefore it was held that there was no causal nexus between the accident and the credit hire claimed. The entire claim for credit hire charges was dismissed.
The Hire Charges
The hire charges were made up of:
(a) hire of a replacement vehicle for 70 days at £51.30
(b) collection charge of £50
(c) VAT at 17½%.
The daily rate of hire was not in dispute. Subject to the issue of “causal nexus”, the amount in dispute between the parties was £721.83, relating mainly to the period of hire.
The Hire Period
The accident occurred on 3rd July 2007. It was accepted that the Defendant’s skip vehicle struck the Plaintiff’s parked vehicle—liability was not in dispute.
The period of replacement vehicle hire began on 7th August 2007, ending on 12th November 2007. It is accepted on the Plaintiff’s behalf that he cannot recover in respect of the period of two weeks in October 2007 when he was on honeymoon. Mr Justice McCloskey noted that “plainly, the principle of reasonable necessity is not satisfied in respect of this discrete period.”
It was accepted that the only damage caused by the subject accident was minor bodywork damage to a discrete area of the front offside which had no impact on the driveability of the vehicle. The MOT Certificate in respect of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, a 1992 Audi Coupe, expired on 4th July 2007, the day following the accident. On 27th July 2007, the Plaintiff’s Audi failed the MOT test. The sole reason for this failure was that the driver’s door handle was defective to the extent that the door could not be opened from the inside. The cost of repairing the defective driver’s door handle would not have exceeded £50 in respect of parts. The defective front driver’s door handle was not caused by the Defendant’s negligence.
Mr Devlin, motor assessor for the Defendant gave evidence that but for the unrelated defect in the driver’s door handle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle would have been driveable until the date upon which the repairs to the bodywork commenced on 24th October 2010. The duration of repairs was 19 days. Mr Devlin, automotive assessor, estimated that repairs should have taken 2 days.
Judgment
Mr Justice McCloskey held that the period of 19 days for repairs was “plainly excessive”. However, the Plaintiff could not be faulted for this and, as noted in other cases, there were no third party proceedings against the repairing garage.
The Court found that the most critical fact here was that the door handle defect was not caused by the subject accident. The evidence of Mr Devlin, motor assessor on this point was accepted.
It was held that this defect was the real and effective cause of the Plaintiff’s vehicle being unroadworthy. The Plaintiff’s vehicle could not be lawfully driven from 4th July 2010 on account of a defect not attributable to the Defendant’s negligence. This defect, according to the court, was the stimulus for the credit hire arrangement and ensuing claim.
Mr Justice McCloskey held that there was no causal nexus between the Defendant’s negligence and the financial losses claimed by the Plaintiff. In consequence, the claim for the cost of credit hire must fail in its entirety.
Costs
Mr Justice McCloskey reserved the issue of courts for further arguments to be presented. He noted that the evidence of Mr. Devlin, automobile assessor, had proved decisive in this Appeal. He held that the exercise of the court’s discretion in respect of the appeal hearing would be informed by, inter alia, the question of whether Mr. Devlin gave evidence at the first hearing. The significance of this is the well established principle that appeals to the High Court from the County Court are a rehearing which, as a general (though not inflexible) rule, should replicate the hearing at first instance.
Where an appeal to the High Court generates an evidential framework which differs significantly from that of the first instance hearing without compelling justification, this may, in principle, result in a successful appellant not recovering its costs of the appeal. The court would decide if at first instance the new evidence adduced on appeal could have averted an appeal and, ipso facto, the costs thereof.