Darbishire v Warran

For damage to a chattel, the ordinary measure is the reasonable cost of restoring it. Where repair would greatly exceed market value, the owner is ordinarily expected to obtain a comparable replacement because damages are assessed by reference to reasonable pecuniary restoration and the duty to mitigate. Personal preference, convenience or attachment to the damaged article cannot increase the defendant’s liability. Market value must reflect the article’s relevant attributes, including condition and reliability, so those attributes are not counted twice. Special circumstances may justify a higher award where no comparable replacement is reasonably available or the article is genuinely unique.

The defendant admitted liability for seriously damaging the plaintiff’s 1951 Lea Francis shooting-brake in a collision. The plaintiff repaired it at a cost of about £180–£192, although its market or replacement value was assessed at £80–£85. The repairers and insurers considered repair uneconomic. The County Court awarded the plaintiff £130, including repair costs, the uninsured excess and hiring charges.

The defendant appealed on the basis that damages should be based on market value rather than repair cost. The central issue was whether the plaintiff’s preference for retaining and repairing his well-maintained car justified charging the substantially greater repair cost to the defendant.

1. Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Harman and Mr Justice Pennycuick formed the majority on the final assessment. They held that the proper assessment was based on reasonable restitution, not the plaintiff’s personal preference.
2. The governing principle is restitutio in integrum: damages should place the claimant, so far as money can, in the position occupied before the wrong. In chattel damage, restoration may ordinarily be achieved by repair or by purchasing a comparable article.
3. Where repair costs greatly exceed market value, and there are no special circumstances, purchasing a comparable article is the reasonable method. Mitigation does not prevent the claimant from choosing an expensive repair. It limits the amount chargeable to the defendant to the sum reasonably needed to make good the loss.
4. The assessment is made by reference to pecuniary interest. Mere taste, convenience or attachment cannot be charged to the defendant. Mr Justice Pennycuick added that market value includes relevant attributes such as mechanical condition and reliability, so those attributes cannot justify a further addition.
5. The ordinary rule is subject to exceptional circumstances. A higher award may be justified where the article is unique or no comparable replacement can reasonably be obtained. The decision in O’Grady v Westminster Scaffolding Ltd. (1962, 2 Lloyds List Reports, p.238) was distinguished because the vehicle there was effectively unique.
6. Lord Justice Harman and Mr Justice Pennycuick assessed the recoverable damage at £30. Lord Justice Pearson would have allowed £50 by permitting some flexibility above standard market value, but accepted that the majority figure prevailed.
7. The appeal was allowed with costs. The plaintiff recovered County Court costs to delivery of the defence, and the defendant recovered costs thereafter.

• Court of Appeal: allowed the defendant’s appeal from the Haywards Heath County Court and reduced damages to £30: [1963] EWCA Civ 2.
• Haywards Heath County Court: awarded the plaintiff £130, including £100 for repairs, £5 for the uninsured excess and £25 for hiring a substitute vehicle.