0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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