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?

Clarke v McCullough - High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, 21 December 2012

15 April 2013
The issues:

Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 Regulation 7 – mitigation of loss – replacement vehicle

The facts:

The court was asked to determine quantum of damages for the plaintiff (C) against the defendant (M) following a road traffic accident whereby the defendant opened the driver’s door of her parked vehicle, giving rise to an impact with the nearside of the plaintiff’s moving vehicle.

The plaintiff sought damages for the following:
(a) the cost of hiring a replacement vehicle from 12 April 2010 to 5 March 2011, period of 328, totalling £32,380.97
(b) repairs to the plaintiff’s vehicle £2,496.68
(c) vehicle storage charges for a period of 244 days at £2,214.00
(d) insurance policy excess of £200.00

Items (b) and (d) were no longer disputed once liability had been decided.

In regards to item (a) there were five successive hire agreements with the defendant disputing the amount claimed. The main issue was whether the defendant had established that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss or acted unreasonably in the mitigation measures he undertook. In addition to this the court considered whether the cancellation notices in respect of the credit hire agreements of 14 April 2010 and 14 July 2010 were unenforceable by reason of non-compliance with Regulation 7 of Cancellation of Contracts made in the Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008.

The decision:

The main question for the court was the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct throughout the duration of almost eleven months hire. A clear hiatus was reached at the time of the third of five hire agreements expired and was to be superseded by the fourth, on 23rd September 2010. As of September 2010 there was no end in sight in regards to the ongoing dispute in respect of liability and the future was impossible to predict yet hire charges continued to be incurred. At this juncture the plaintiff accepted a superior replacement vehicle thereby committing himself to a higher rate of hire, despite the fact that his vehicle could be repaired for some £2500.00. The court found that at this point the plaintiff had two options: to commit himself to a further period of incalculable and indefinite hire or to pay for the repairs to his own vehicle. The court concluded that the defendant had discharged the burden of establishing that the plaintiff’s failure to arrange for the repair of his vehicle at his own expense by 23 September 2010 was as a matter of law a failure to take reasonable steps in mitigation of his loss.

In respect of the enforceability of the hire agreements of 14 April 2010 and 14 July 2010 the issue of enforceability was irrelevant as the plaintiff through his ‘protection’ insurance policy had discharged fully his contractual liability to Accident Exchange. As such the plaintiff’s claim was for a financial loss already incurred by him and such loss was recoverable as a matter of law.

The plaintiff’s recoverable damages were therefore as follows:
(a) cost of repairing his vehicle £2,496.68
(b) insurance policy excess payment of £200.00
(c) vehicle storage from 1 May 2010 to 23 September 2010, a period of 145 days, £1,305.00 (inclusive of VAT)
(d) cost of hiring replacement vehicle from 12 April 2010 to 23 September 2010, a period of 164 days, £8,263.94 (inclusive of VAT)
(e) the administration fee of £30.00 and engineer’s fee of £58.75, neither of which were in dispute, £88.75
(f) total: £12,408.37

Focus on...

Broker Insight event

Catch up with our Broker Insight on-demand video. With many intermediaries looking to buy, sell or seek external investment, we explored the elements of a successful M&A transaction.

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

Contribution claims post settlement – Percy v Merriman White & David Mayal [2021] EWHC 22 (Ch)

This claim addresses the question of whether a collateral defence can be raised to a claim for contribution following a settlement under the Contribution Act 1978 (“the Act”) and the apportionment of liability for negligence between a solicitor and a barrister.

View

Legal updates

Insurance Annual Review 2020-2021

In our review of developments in 2020 and analysis of some of the important issues on the horizon in 2021, we share insights that we hope will enable you to rise to the challenges, and make the most of the opportunities, which lie ahead across various sectors and lines of business.

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