This site uses cookies.

Editorial: Opoku v Tintas: Court of Appeal on Period of Hire - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers

22/07/13. Challenging the period of hire in a credit hire case has always been a difficult issue for Insurers. In many credit hire cases it is the period of hire more than the daily rate that Insurers instinctively want to challenge, whether because the repairs take far longer than the estimate or because a long period of hire means that the charges become disproportionate to the pre-accident value of the vehicle. But the Court of Appeal decision in Clark v Ardington [2003] QB 36 has always presented a major obstacle, requiring in accordance with Mattocks v Mann (1973) RTR 13 the Defendant to prove that there was “some conduct on [the Claimant’s] part or on the part of someone for whom she is in law responsible, or indeed of a third party, which can truly be said to be an independent cause of loss of use of her car”. The difficulty in proving the existence of an independent cause of loss of use of the damaged vehicle means that the instinctive challenge to the period of hire is often lost.

In Opoku v Tintas (July 2013), however, the Court of Appeal delivered what is likely to be a significant decision relating to the period of hire in a credit hire case. A transcript of this ex tempore judgment is awaited, but from the information available it appears that this was a case where the Claimant, who was found to be impecunious, continued hiring a replacement vehicle for approximately two years rather than paying for repairs in the sum of £3,400. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that there came a point, identified as after the Defendant had inspected the vehicle, when it was unreasonable for the Claimant not to effect repairs.

Although fuller analysis will have to wait for the transcript, the case is likely to be significant in relation to long periods of hire. In particular, it is interesting that although the Claimant was found to be impecunious in relation to his ability to pay the hire charges, this did not prevent the Judge from finding that he would have been able to find the money to pay for repairs (at least after some time had passed). The relationship between having the money to pay for hire charges and having the money to pay for repairs is not straightforward, and it is interesting that the Court of Appeal saw no inconsistency in the above finding. The decision may also suggest that the mounting hire charges are a factor that Claimants should take into account in deciding whether to carry on hiring. Defendants are therefore likely to be able to rely on this decision in many similar cases to challenge extended periods of hire, in circumstances where they have not made an interim payment to allow repairs to succeed.

Aidan Ellis

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.