Brewer v Mann & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 246 (07 March 2012)

Brewer v Mann & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 246 (07 March 2012)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in materially rewriting his judgment after hand-down without exceptional justification and that the proper approach to the description of the car and the existence of a collateral warranty required careful consideration of market understanding and the evidence. The appeal was allowed in part, with findings that the car was properly described as a 1930 Bentley Speed Six for contractual purposes, no binding collateral warranty as to the engine's authenticity was established, and the trial judge's process was flawed by improper post-judgment alterations and apparent lack of objectivity.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 246
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Mercedes Travis Brewer; First Defendant / Appellant: Stanley Mann; Second Defendant / Appellant: Fortis Lease UK Limited; Third Defendant / Appellant: Stanley Mann Racing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages and costs orders varied.
Legal Topics
Collateral Warranty, Description of Goods, Hire Purchase, Bailment by Description, Alteration of Judgments, Judicial Bias, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Collateral Warranty Description of Goods Hire Purchase Bailment by Description Alteration of Judgments +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercedes Travis Brewer

Claimant / Respondent

Stanley Mann

First Defendant / Appellant

Fortis Lease UK Limited

Second Defendant / Appellant

Stanley Mann Racing Limited

Third Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the car supplied was properly described as a '1930 Bentley Speed Six' under the contract and collateral warranty
  2. 2 Whether an oral collateral warranty was given that the car contained an authentic Speed Six engine
  3. 3 Whether the hire purchase contract was breached by non-compliance with description

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in materially rewriting his judgment after hand-down without exceptional justification and that the proper approach to the description of the car and the existence of a collateral warranty required careful consideration of market understanding and the evidence. The appeal was allowed in part, with findings that the car was properly described as a 1930 Bentley Speed Six for contractual purposes, no binding collateral warranty as to the engine's authenticity was established, and the trial judge's process was flawed by improper post-judgment alterations and apparent lack of objectivity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages and costs orders varied.

Orders

  • Damages of £100,811 (including £94,555 principal and £6,256 interest) against the dealer, his company, and the finance house affirmed or varied as per appellate findings.
  • Interim payment of £110,000 towards costs ordered.