Bent v Highways and Utilities Construction Ltd & Anor

For a claimant who can pay hire charges, damages for a replacement vehicle are normally assessed by reference to spot hire rates for a broadly similar vehicle. Evidence of rates at a later date is not irrelevant. The court may use comparable rates and make appropriate adjustments for changes over time. An exact match is unnecessary: vehicles within the same broad range of quality and nature may be considered, and a reasonable average of the resulting bracket may be adopted. Where the trial judge fails to assess relevant spot-rate evidence on that basis, the damages issue should be remitted for retrial.

The defendants accepted liability for an accident which damaged the claimant’s Mercedes sports car. They also accepted that he needed a replacement vehicle, that a broadly equivalent vehicle was appropriate, and that the 94-day hire period was reasonable.

The claimant hired an Aston Martin DB9 through a credit hire company at a total cost of £63,406.90. The defendants challenged the amount, arguing that the vehicle was too expensive and that the claimant should have used the cheaper spot market. The Cambridge County Court, before His Honour Judge Yelton, rejected those arguments and awarded the full hire charges. The central issue on appeal was whether the judge had properly assessed the available evidence of spot rates for comparable vehicles.

1. Appeal and retrial. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial on the appropriate hire rate. Lord Justice Jacob gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice Leveson and Mr Justice Briggs were in broad agreement.
2. Spot-rate assessment. In the case of a claimant able to pay hire charges, damages are normally assessed by reference to the spot rate at which a broadly similar replacement vehicle could have been hired. The parties accepted that this was the relevant basis for assessment, subject to the evidence.
3. Evidence from later dates. The trial judge erred in treating evidence of spot rates at a later date as irrelevant. Valuation courts commonly use prices for the same or similar items at different dates and make appropriate adjustments. Evidence from 2008, and potentially 2009, was therefore capable of throwing considerable light on the rate applicable in February 2007.
4. Comparable vehicles. The court should not be unduly concerned with finding an exact spot rate for an exactly comparable car. A replacement vehicle normally need only fall within the same broad range of quality and nature as the damaged vehicle. The judge may consider a bracket of rates for somewhat better and somewhat worse vehicles and adopt a reasonable average.
5. Scope of the retrial. Both parties were entitled to adduce evidence concerning spot rates and equivalent rates, including evidence challenging the defendants’ proposed rates. The suggested Bentley issue was excluded because it had not formed part of the original trial. The court made no ruling on the claimant’s proposed application to adduce fresh evidence in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the defendants’ appeal from the Cambridge County Court and ordered a retrial on the appropriate replacement-vehicle hire rate.
• Cambridge County Court: His Honour Judge Yelton awarded the claimant the full credit hire charges after rejecting the challenges based on the vehicle hired and the availability of cheaper spot hire.