0370 270 6000

Burdis v Livsey

8 November 2001
The issues

Damages – Road Traffic – Credit Repair

The facts

The Claimants car was damaged in a road traffic accident. He went to a Credit Repair Company and his vehicle was repaired under a credit agreement. The Judge found that the credit agreement was unenforceable. However the Judge also found that although the Claimant had repairs done at no expense to herself she should still be entitled to an award of damages for the cost of those repairs. The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. Damages were compensatory.

2. Jones v Stroud District Council contained a passage from Lord Justice Neal which the Claimant relied upon to the effect that on proof of damage to a thing owned by a person the Court was not concerned to enquire whether the cost had been born out of the person’s own pocket or from some other source.

3. However this passage was impossible to reconcile with the House of Lords decision in Hunt v Severs or Dimmond v Lovell. Jones was therefore no longer good law.

4. This case did not fall into either of the two exceptions to the rule against double recovery. The Appeal would be 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.



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