Voaden v Champion

Damages for destruction of an old, second-hand chattel are compensatory and financial. They are not automatically measured by the cost of a new replacement. Where no market replacement exists, the court should assess the claimant’s actual loss on the facts, allowing an intermediate valuation where appropriate. Reasonableness and proportionality are central, particularly where the chattel was nearing the end of its useful life. Betterment without deduction is exceptional and fact-sensitive. A claimant who receives the full value of a destroyed chattel, together with interest, cannot ordinarily recover a further sum for personal use. Fresh evidence on appeal remains governed by the Ladd v Marshall criteria, applied as flexible guidelines subject to the overriding objective.

Liability for the loss of the yacht Baltic Surveyor and its pontoon had been accepted. On quantum, Colman J awarded £82,000 for the yacht and £16,000 for the pontoon in The Baltic Surveyor [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 739. The claimant appealed on valuation, the measure of loss for the pontoon, and loss of personal use.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence concerning the principal comparable yacht, reassessed the yacht’s value, and considered whether replacement cost, betterment, reasonableness and interest justified further recovery. The central issues were the proper financial measure of loss and whether personal use gave rise to an additional head of damages.

Appeal allowed in part. Lord Justice Rix gave the judgment, with which Lady Justice Hale and Lord Justice Schiemann agreed.

1. Fresh evidence. The three criteria in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 remain relevant under the CPR, but operate as guidelines subject to the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly. The evidence concerning the comparable yacht was credible and likely to have an important influence on the result. Its admission was also justified by the obvious error in the trial evidence and the potential unfairness caused by the late production of material. The Court of Appeal reassessed the valuation itself because remittal would have been disproportionate.
2. Value of the yacht. The trial judge had treated the comparable’s reported sale price as a sound-condition price. The fresh evidence showed that the comparable had sold for £142,000 in 1994, after survey, when in poor condition and without the relevant certification. Like must be compared with like. The post-survey value of Baltic Surveyor was assessed at £145,000, increasing the award from £82,000.
3. Pontoon. Damages seek to place the claimant in as good a financial position as if the wrong had not occurred. More-than-loss recovery without a new-for-old deduction is exceptional. Where no second-hand market exists, the court must make a fact-sensitive financial assessment of the loss. Replacement cost is not automatically appropriate, particularly for an old chattel nearing the end of its life. Reasonableness and proportionality permit an intermediate figure. The judge’s 8/30 assessment, producing £16,000, was correct in principle and was not open to challenge in detail. The appeal on this issue was dismissed.
4. Personal use. The value of a chattel intended for personal enjoyment includes the use and amenity for which the owner acquired it. Where the claimant receives that value and interest from the date of loss, no additional award for personal use is ordinarily available. Special losses caused by circumstances such as adapting or replacing a commercial vessel may be recoverable, but none were claimed. The appeal on this issue was dismissed.

The order was therefore: appeal allowed in part, with the award for the yacht increased to £145,000 and the remainder of the appeal dismissed.

• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Admiralty Court: Colman J assessed quantum in The Baltic Surveyor [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 739, awarding £82,000 for the yacht and £16,000 for the pontoon.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in part. Fresh evidence was admitted, the yacht’s value was increased to £145,000, and the remaining grounds were dismissed.