0370 270 6000

K v B, Court of Appeal

18 March 2003
The issues

Memorandum of understanding – understating claim – Small Claims Track – road traffic.

The facts

The Claimant had a road traffic accident involving the Defendant. As a result, the Claimant’s vehicle had to be repaired and the cost was £755.89. That cost was paid by Insurers accept for the excess of £125.00. The two respective Insurers had a memorandum of understanding and accordingly the claim was issued in respect of the excess and miscellaneous expenses only totalling £155.73 in all. The District Judge ordered the Claimant to file Particulars giving the “true value” of the claim, i.e. including the costs of the vehicle repairs. The Claimant refused to do so and the claim was struck out on the basis that litigants were not permitted to understate claims to minimise costs. The Defendant appealed and the decision was transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

1. Nothing in the CPR obliged the Claimant to include all the claims he might advance against the Defendant.

2. The Court had no power to increase the value of a claim or to include items, which the Claimant did not include.

3. There was no distinction between subrogated and non-subrogated claims.

4. There was nothing contrary to the overriding objective or the interest of justice in what the parties had agreed to do. If the under-valuing of the claim meant that an otherwise complicated claim was likely to be tried in the wrong track, the Court had jurisdiction to allocate it to a different and appropriate track.

Appeal allowed and claim reinstated.

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