0370 270 6000

Cunningham v Damon, County Court, 1 December 1999

6 July 2000
The issues

Credit hire – car provided under a policy.

The facts

The Claimant brought an action against the Defendant following an RTA. Liability was not in issue. The only outstanding claim when proceedings were issued were hire charges in the sum of £1085.64. The Claimant had an insurance policy with AA under which AA provided it would indemnify him against the cost of hiring a replacement vehicle provided:

(1) The costs of the hire did not exceed 21 days
(2) That the Claimant would be able to recover the whole of the hire costs whether initially paid by the insured or the insurer.
(3) That AA was entitled to pursue recovery of the costs on the Claimant’s behalf.

The Claimant said he was unaware of the provisions of the policy. Following the accident the Claimant was provided with a replacement car by a hire company EUK.

The insurance company paid the charges and no invoice was ever sent to the Claimant. The insurance company brought a claim in the name of the Claimant for the recovery of the hire charges on the basis that it was subrogated to the Claimant’s rights of recovery against the Defendant. At first instance, it was held that the Claimant had no liability to pay the hire charges as there was no enforceable agreement between himself and EUK – he therefore had no loss and could not recover the hire charges from the Defendant. Moreover the right to subrogation only arose where the Claimant has been indemnified for a liability that he had incurred. As there was no liability on the part of the Claimant to pay the hire charges no right of subrogation arose.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

The appeal was dismissed. There was no agreement between the Claimant and EUK. He had no loss. He could not recover the hire charges from the Defendant. Doctrine of subrogation as a restitutionary remedy for unjust enrichment was a developing area of the law – see Lord Steyn in Banque Financier de Cite SA -v- Parc (Battersea) Limited (1999). However such as the law was it appeared to be distinguishable on the basis that previously the right to recover on the part of the insurance company was limited to the rights of the insured against the Defendant.

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.



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.


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.


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.


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