bulletin
Copley v Lawn and Maden v Haller
26 June 2009
Judgment in Copley v Lawn and Maden v Haller was handed down
last week on 17 June 2009.
The case concerned insurers (or any other third party) offering
‘free replacement cars’ as opposed to claimant’s hiring on a credit
hire basis.
Judgment was entered for the claimants and the Court found that
it was not unreasonable to reject or ignore an offer, where it does
not make the cost of hire clear to the defendant, thereby enabling
them to make a realistic comparison with the cost they are about to
incur.
Conversely, if a claimant does have clear details of the
alternative vehicle and cost, and proceeds to reject or ignore it,
they may be considered to have acted unreasonably. The claimant,
however, will still be entitled to at least the cost, which the
defendant can show they would reasonably have incurred. As a
result, the claimant would not forfeit the damages claim
altogether.
The Court also refused permission to appeal the decision to the
House of Lords.
talk to us
save to PDF
The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of
general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries
of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive
statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not provide a substitute for it.