Damages – Valuation – Evidence – Car accident involving respondent and first appellant’s driver – Appellants accepting liability to pay for cost of hire car until respondent’s car repaired – Appellants claiming cheaper to pay on the spot rather than hiring on credit as respondent had done — Evidence adduced of spot hire costs in subsequent years – Whether later spot hire rates relevant to cost of hire at date of accident – Appeal allowed
In February 2007, the respondent professional footballer was involved in a car accident caused by the first appellant’s driver. The first appellant and the second appellant, its insurer, accepted liability. The appellants accepted that the respondent needed a replacement car while his damaged Mercedes V12 6.3 was being repaired and that he was entitled to hire a similar car, for which the appellants would have to pay appropriate hire charges. They also accepted that the 94-day period of hire claimed for was not unreasonable in the circumstances. However, they disputed liability to pay the full hire charges for the car that the respondent had in fact hired, namely an Aston Martin DB9, which was at a total hire cost of £63,406.90. They argued that, inter alia, the respondent’s duty to mitigate his loss had required him to hire from the “spot” market, it being cheaper to pay for the car on the spot rather than on credit.
The judge rejected those arguments and allowed the claim. He found that the appellants had not advanced proper evidence of the spot rate as at February 2007 and that their evidence of spot rates for various cars in 2008-09 was not helpful. He held that, in the absence of evidence of the cost of hiring a Mercedes or Aston Martin of the relevant type on a daily rate as at February 2007, the appellants should accept the amount claimed by the respondent. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The judge had erred in his view that evidence of the spot hire rates at a date later than the actual hire date was irrelevant. When assessing valuation evidence, there was often evidence of prices of the same or a similar item at different dates was often available and it was necessary to make appropriate adjustments. Working with comparables and making adjustments was the daily task of judges concerned with valuation in a variety of fields. Evidence of the spot rate a year or so later than the relevant date was likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time. Further, it was not necessary to find an exact spot rate for an almost exactly comparable car. Normally, the replacement needed only to be in the same broad range of quality and nature as the damaged car. There might be a bracket of spot rates for cars rather “better” and rather “worse” than the damaged car and it would be appropriate for a judge to consider that bracket and aim for a reasonable average. The case would be remitted for retrial, with both sides able to adduce what evidence they chose on spot rates and equivalent rates.
Mark Turner QC and Kiril Waite (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP, of Manchester) appeared for the appellants; Andrew Edis QC and Kenneth Delaney (instructed by PCJ Solicitors Ltd, of Liverpool) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
