Copley Revisited Again - Jason Prosser, Credit Hire Advocacy Services
07/02/12. In the March edition of PIBULJ I reported on a decision of His Honour Judge Harris QC, Sayce v TNT, Cambridge County Court 25 January 2011, which appeared to cast doubt upon the earlier decision of the court of Appeal in Copley v Lawn and Madden v Haller [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 890. In Copley the Court of Appeal found;
-
it could not be unreasonable for a claimant to reject an offer of a replacement vehicle which does not make clear to the claimant the comparative terms upon which the vehicle was offered, particularly of course, the cost to the defendant;
-
that even if such an offer was made and rejected, then the claimant could still recover the cost which the defendant would have incurred had it been taken up.
The facts in Sayce were slightly different to Copley in that TNT argued that it had disclosed to the claimant the cost to them of hiring the replacement vehicle on her behalf. Following Copley, TNT conceded that the claimant was entitled to recover the cost to them in any event but nevertheless...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/blueclue
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
