Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd

Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd

The correct approach to determining the basic hire rate (BHR) is an objective one: the judge should identify the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier for the basic hire of a vehicle of the kind actually hired by the claimant, in the relevant locality, with a nil excess. The claimant's subjective willingness to pay is irrelevant. The appeal is dismissed because, although the judge below erred in approach, the outcome was not to the claimant's disadvantage.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Karl Stevens; Defendant/respondent: Equity Syndicate Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Credit Hire Agreements, Damages Assessment, Mitigation of Loss, Basic Hire Rate Calculation
Tort Law Insurance Law Credit Hire Agreements Damages Assessment Mitigation of Loss Basic Hire Rate Calculation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Stevens

Claimant/appellant

Equity Syndicate Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the basic hire element of a credit hire agreement be ascertained for damages recovery?
  2. 2 Is the claimant entitled to recover the full credit hire rate or only the basic hire rate?
  3. 3 What is the correct method for determining the basic hire rate (BHR)?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct approach to determining the basic hire rate (BHR) is an objective one: the judge should identify the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier for the basic hire of a vehicle of the kind actually hired by the claimant, in the relevant locality, with a nil excess. The claimant's subjective willingness to pay is irrelevant. The appeal is dismissed because, although the judge below erred in approach, the outcome was not to the claimant's disadvantage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed