Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Limited

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the judge's primary findings of fact. The judge found that a drainage channel blockage allowed catastrophic ingress of water into a Mercedes AMG GTC Roadster, that prior incidents in February and April 2019 showed moisture consistent with the same blockage, and that it was more probable than not that a Mercedes dealer had cleared the drainage channel at the May 2019 service such that the later flooding arose from a subsequent re-blockage. Applying section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the judge concluded the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality and upheld the respondent's final right to reject, ordering a refund less a deduction for use and modest damages.

The appeal centred on whether the judge's factual inference about the May 2019 service was plainly wrong. The Court applied settled appellate principles (including the test in Volpi and FAGE) and concluded the judge's finding was rationally supportable on the evidence, including expert consensus about the drain design and the service documentation; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

The respondent purchased a Mercedes AMG GTC Roadster from the appellant in August 2018. In November 2019 the passenger footwell was found flooded with rainwater, causing extensive electrical damage. The respondent issued proceedings under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for supply of goods not of satisfactory quality. At first instance HHJ Pearce found that water had entered because a drainage channel, which runs from the rear of the roof and exits beneath the car, was blocked and that small organic debris could accumulate behind a rubber diaphragm producing such a blockage. The judge accepted evidence of prior moisture issues in February 2019 and damp carpet noted by a bodywork specialist in April 2019, and concluded those incidents and the November flooding were causally connected.

Nature of the claim: claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (section 9) for goods not of satisfactory quality; remedy sought included rejection of the vehicle, refund of the purchase price, and damages.

Issues framed:

• What caused the ingress of water?
• Whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality under section 9 of the 2015 Act.
• Whether the service carried out in May 2019 would, or did, clear any blockage.

Court's reasoning: The judge accepted expert evidence that the drain design contained a potential weakness and that blockage could lead to overflow into the footwell. He inferred, from a combination of documentary evidence (a 'Service B' entry and a visual health check), experts' evidence that clearing drains is part of such services, and the fact RSC had reported dampness to the dealer before the May service, that the May 2019 service had likely included clearance of the drain. On that factual basis the judge found the later flooding resulted from a subsequent blockage and that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality. The vehicle's market value as salvage was found to be low; the judge granted the respondent the final right to reject, ordered repayment of the price less a £5,000 deduction for use and awarded damages of £1,334. On appeal the Court of Appeal applied the high threshold for upsetting factual findings (that the judge was plainly wrong or reached a decision no reasonable judge could have reached) and concluded the judge's inferences were rationally supportable. The appeal was dismissed.

Subsidiary findings included expert agreement there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, acceptance of the respondent's evidence about garaging and limited outside use, and a salvage valuation of approximately 8,500 used in awarding the final remedy.

Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the judge's central factual finding — that the May 2019 service likely included clearance of the drainage channel and that the later flooding resulted from a subsequent re-blockage — was rationally supportable on the evidence and not plainly wrong. On that factual basis the judge correctly applied section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to find the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality and ordered the respondent's remedy (final right to reject, refund less deduction and damages).

Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) from a judgment of HHJ Pearce sitting in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester (CC-2021-MAN-000029). Permission to proceed was granted by Males LJ; the Court of Appeal delivered judgment dismissing the appeal on 19 October 2022 ([2022] EWCA Civ 1339).