In summary this was a claim whereby the PH reversed into C’s stationary motorcycle causing it and the rider to fall to the ground.
Breach of duty was accepted but the C issued a claim for £90,000.00 which included PAV (£5,803.36), storage (£6,363.60), recovery (£330.00) and credit hire (£73,157.23).
Following disclosure the PAV, injuries and various miscellaneous items were settled mid-proceedings however our concerns focused on the hire claim in particular.
We obtained expert evidence from Acume which opined that C’s bike could have been placed back on the road for temporary repairs of just over £400 and via application we obtained permission to rely on the same.
The DJ gave the C’s engineer permission to respond to the Acume report whereby it became apparent that their original engineer had in fact not been the inspecting engineer, and so followed a series of applications by C to correct their engineering evidence for which we received costs payments totaling £6,206.07 (which client has received).
At trial the Court dismissed the credit hire claim in its entirety (and the recovery claim) on the following basis:-
Why the claim failed
- C’s pre-accident usage of the bike was minimal.
- The bike was described in cross-examination as a ‘toy’.
- It was not required for commuting.
- C admitted there were periods when the hire vehicle was not used.
- The Court accepted our point on inspection delays.
- Recovery was rejected as unnecessary and inadequately evidenced.
- The physio invoice was reduced.
- The Court found C honest, but his evidence did not establish need.
- The Acume report did not become a significant issue at trial.
As a result we beat our own Part 36 offer which had been made back in July 2025 and thus our costs were offset against those due to the Cl Sols.
"All in all, a very pleasing result!"