Putta v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Plc

In a credit-hire claim, impecuniosity means an inability to pay ordinary hire charges without making unreasonable sacrifices. The court may consider available credit-card facilities, overdrafts and other reasonably accessible funds. A claimant need not be reduced to penury, but must choose the least expensive reasonable means of mitigation.

Where basic hire rates are disputed, the court should identify rates in the claimant’s geographical area for the type of vehicle actually hired. The lowest reasonable rate from a mainstream supplier, or a local reputable supplier where no mainstream supplier is available, may provide the appropriate benchmark. An appellate court should not interfere with factual findings unless they lack evidential support or cannot reasonably be explained or justified.

The claimant, a self-employed private-hire taxi driver, appealed against a Dartford County Court order awarding damages for vehicle repairs and a reduced period of credit hire following a road accident. The trial judge found that the vehicle could have been repaired sooner, that the claimant was not impecunious because he had accessible credit-card and other funds, and that a lower basic hire rate was available from a local reputable provider.

The appeal challenged the findings on impecuniosity, the period of hire, the recoverability of financing consequences, and the basic hire rate. The central issues were whether the claimant could reasonably have funded repairs and basic-rate hire from available resources, and whether the evidence supported the selected rate and period.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge’s award remained undisturbed.
2. Findings of fact, including evaluative findings and inferences, should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no evidential basis, a material misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, or the decision cannot reasonably be explained or justified. The judge’s findings on the claimant’s finances and the available hire rate satisfied that standard.
3. Under Lagden v O’Conner [2004] 1 AC 1067, impecuniosity concerns whether the claimant could pay ordinary hire charges without unreasonable sacrifice. The claimant must select the least expensive reasonable route to mitigation. Impecuniosity need not amount to penury.
4. The trial judge was entitled to take account of credit-card facilities, an arranged overdraft, current-account balances and accessible tax savings. Considering the claimant’s resources week by week, she was entitled to conclude that he could have funded repairs and basic-rate hire while retaining a substantial financial buffer. The claimant’s decision to incur substantially higher credit-hire charges was therefore unreasonable.
5. The period of hire was properly reduced. Since the claimant was not impecunious, he could reasonably have begun repairs after a reasonable period for the insurer to respond and could have returned the vehicle to the road earlier.
6. For the basic hire rate, Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 93 required consideration of the claimant’s geographical area and the type of vehicle actually hired. The trial judge was entitled to rely on evidence that a comparable plated vehicle was probably available from Wendex, a local reputable provider, at £350 for seven days. The absence of a guarantee of availability did not invalidate that assessment.
7. The challenge to the judge’s broad assessment of interest also failed. The evidence supported her conclusion that reasonable repair and hire charges would probably have been paid relatively quickly.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) — On appeal from an order of Her Honour Judge Venn sitting in the Dartford County Court on 12 August 2019. The appeal was dismissed.