Singh v Yaqubi

A claimant seeking special damages for replacement-vehicle hire must first prove a reasonable need for the vehicle. That need is not self-proving. If established, the defendant must show that the need was not met reasonably, including by challenging the vehicle or expenditure.

Business claims for expensive vehicles require specific evidence of actual use before the accident and during the hire period. General assertions may be insufficient, particularly where other vehicles are available and the claim is substantial.

Apparent bias is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would see a real possibility of bias. Judicial comments on moral or social values, though discouraged, do not necessarily satisfy that test where the judge applies legal principles objectively.

The appellant’s Rolls Royce was damaged in a collision caused by the respondent. The appellant relied on the business partnership’s need for a replacement vehicle and claimed substantial hire charges for a Bentley and a Rolls Royce during the repair period.

The Central London County Court awarded the appellant £8,709.50 plus interest on liability but dismissed the hire claim. The judge considered that the evidence did not establish a reasonable need, although he identified a lower hire figure that would have been awarded if need had been proved.

The appeal challenged the findings on need and hire rates, and alleged apparent bias arising from the judge’s comments about wealth, social values and the claim. The central issues were whether the judge was apparently biased and whether the evidence established a reasonable need for the replacement Rolls Royce.

Lord Justice Pill gave the leading judgment. Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Apparent bias. The applicable test was whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased, as stated in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357. The judge had made openly expressed comments about wealth, insurance premiums and social values, and those comments were not encouraged. However, there was no allegation of actual bias, no evidence of a general predisposition against rich claimants, and no criticism of the conduct of the hearing or the judge’s summary of the evidence. The judge had applied legal principles, found for the appellant on liability and rejected an excessive-repair-period argument. The comments therefore did not cause a fair-minded and informed observer to doubt the judge’s ability to decide the case objectively.
2. Reasonable need. A claim for replacement-vehicle hire as special damage requires the claimant first to prove a reasonable need for a replacement vehicle. The need is not self-proving, following Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 and the Court of Appeal decision in Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321. If need is not established, questions concerning the reasonableness of the replacement vehicle or mitigation do not arise. If need is established, the burden lies on the defendant to show that the need was not met reasonably.
3. Evidence and disposition. The claim depended on the partnership’s business need, although the partnership had six other prestigious vehicles available under the same insurance policy. The judge was entitled to require specific evidence of the actual business use of the damaged vehicle before the accident and the use of the hired vehicle during the hire period. Generalised evidence did not establish need, particularly in a claim of about £2,000 per day. The appellant therefore failed on an issue essential to the claim, and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 29 January 2013, the court dismissed the appeal. The judgment is reported under [2013] EWCA Civ 23.
2. Central London County Court: On 14 February 2012, HHJ Cowell found for the appellant on liability and awarded £8,709.50 plus interest, but dismissed the claim for replacement-vehicle hire charges.