0370 270 6000

Romascan v Gurney, Mayor's and City of London Court, 10 January 2000

16 June 2000
The issues

Where The Cost Of Vehicle Inspection Report Is Recoverable Under Civil Procedure Rules Part 27 (Small Claims).

The facts

The Claimant brought an action for damages for the cost of repairs to her car. The case was allocated to the Small Claims Track. The claim settled eventually and the Claimant claimed the cost of the report (£42.50) as an item of special damage.

At the hearing she conceded that it was a cost and not an item of special damage and sought payment of the report fee as a recoverable cost under the rules.

The decision

The cost of the report was not recoverable. It was an inspection report for the Claimant’s insurer’s purposes and not for the purposes of litigation. It was not an expert’s report. No application for permission for expert evidence had been made and it would be unusual in these types of cases to have expert evidence allowed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page 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.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up