0370 270 6000

Smith v Loughin

15 September 2000
The issues

Whether a claim for diminution in value of his vehicle should be allowed – what evidence was necessary.

The facts

Road traffic accident. Liability admitted. Claim brought for diminution of the value of the vehicle. Claimant contended vehicle valued at £6,500 but that its value diminished by 5% relying upon an engineer’s report and by virtue of it being a repaired vehicle. See Peyton -v- Brookes. Defendant contended (a) there was no evidence that the engineer had inspected the vehicle before or after repairs or that the repairs were not carried out to a satisfactory and competent standard; (b) there was no evidence to suggest that the Claimant was not satisfied with the repairs; (c) any repairs carried out would carry a twelve month guarantee and any defects would be covered by the warranty.

The decision

The claim for this head was dismissed. There was no evidence that the engineer had inspected nor that the repairs had not been carried out to a satisfactory standard.

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