The claimants operated the container terminal in Southampton. A crane was struck and damaged beyond repair by the defendants’ vessel. The crane was not replaced because before the casualty the claimants had ordered two new cranes. Loss of use of the damaged crane before the new cranes were delivered had caused some inconvenience, but no measurable financial loss. Nevertheless, the claimants asked for the replacement loss of the damaged crane (andpound;2.395 million) being the agreed cost of buying, modifying and transporting a second-hand crane from the United States. The judge only awarded the agreed resale value of the crane in Southampton (andpound;665,000).
Held: Unless compelled by authority to do so, the cost of reinstatement by reference to transportation and modification costs, which had not and would never be incurred and which it would be unreasonable to incur, could not fairly be regarded as caused by the defendants’ tort The court reviewed the authorities and accepted the following (1) On proof of the tortious destruction of a chattel, the owner is prima facie entitled to damages reflecting the market value of the chattel ‘as is’. (2) He is so entitled whether or not he intends to obtain a replacement. (3) The market or resale value is to be assessed on the evidence, there being no standard measure applicable to all circumstances.
Judges:
Clarke, Thorpe LJJ and Holland J
Citations:
Times 13-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 275, [2001] EWCA Civ 717
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping Co Sag CA 2-May-2003
Substantial items of equipment had been destroyed in Saudi Arabia, and needed to be valued.
Held: The valuation had to include the time and place of its destruction. Accordingly the valuation correctly calculated the loss by asking for the . .
Cited – Crouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is . .
Cited – Aerospace Publishing Ltd and Another v Thames Water Utilities Ltd CA 11-Jan-2007
A substantial private archive of valuable books had been damaged when the defendant’s water mains burst. The court was asked to assess the value.
Held: The water company’s appeal failed save to a small extent. The articles were of substantial . .
Cited – R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Sa and others ComC 27-Jan-2006
It had held that the defendant insurance intermediaries were liable to the claimants, a German reinsurance company, because of a conspiracy to defraud the claimants on the part of one of the defendants’ employees. The court had to decide issues of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89419
