The claimant’s car had been damaged by a lorry operated by the defendant. The claimant hired a replacement car under a credit hire agreement with AE, which he signed at his home when the replacement vehicle was delivered to him. The defendant’s insurers refused to pay AE’s charges under the 2008 Regulations, and AE therefore looked to W for payment. Once the point on the Regulations had been raised W’s insurers paid the charges and in proceedings brought in his name sought to recover them from the defendant. The defendant argued that the Regulations rendered the credit hire agreement unenforceable against W, because it did not contain the notice required under regulation 7(2), and that in paying AE’s charges W had failed to mitigate his loss.
Held: Adopting and applying the reasoning of His Honour Judge Moloney Q.C. in the Cambridge County Court in Chen Wei v Cambridge Power and Light Ltd (unreported), the court held that the Regulations applied to the contract between W and AE so that it was unenforceable against him and that a claim to recover the charges from W would have failed for the reasons set out in Dimond v Lovell, had he not paid the hire. However, Judge Mackie held that W was to be treated as having paid the hire charges himself and therefore as having suffered a loss in obtaining a replacement vehicle. Having had the use of the vehicle, it was not unreasonable for W to pay the hire charges, even though he was not legally liable to do so, and accordingly he had not failed to mitigate his loss. He was therefore entitled to recover from the defendant.
Judges:
MacKie QC J
Citations:
[2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 667, [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – King v The Victoria Insurance Company Limited PC 20-Mar-1896
Queensland – A cargo of wool was insured ‘at and from Townsville to London’. The lighter carrying the cargo to the ship capsized in the harbour. The insurers paid out and, taking an assignment of the action sued the defendant Government. The latter . .
Cited by:
Cited – Salat v Barutis CA 20-Nov-2013
The claimant had been knocked from his motor cyle by the defendant. He hired a replacement, but when he sought payment of the associated hire charges, the defendant said that the hire company had failed to comply with the 208 Regulations, and that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Damages
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442245