Clark v Tull (t/a Ardington Electrical Services) [2002] EWCA Civ 510 (1st May, 2002)

Clark v Tull (t/a Ardington Electrical Services) [2002] EWCA Civ 510 (1st May, 2002)

The Helphire credit hire and repair agreements are not a pretence and are based on exempt agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The agreements require a single payment within the prescribed period and are not consumer hire agreements as defined by the Act. The insurance arrangements, though artificial, are genuine and payments by Angel Assistance discharge the claimants’ liabilities. Where agreements are unenforceable, repair costs are not recoverable if the claimant has not paid or is not liable to pay, to avoid double recovery. The measure of damages for repairs is the diminution in value, but recovery is limited to sums actually paid or for which the claimant is liable.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 510
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Amanda Clark; Defendant/respondent: Mr Kenneth Tull t/a Ardington Electrical Services; Claimant/appellant: Julian Dennard; Defendant/respondent: Robert Plant; Claimant/appellant: Arjune Sen; Defendant/respondent: Steelform Engineering Company Limited; Claimant/appellant: Victor Lagden; Defendant/respondent: Philippa O’Connor; Claimant/appellant: Wendy Burdis; Defendant/respondent: Eric Livsey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeals From Queen’s Bench Division and Oxford County Court
Outcome
Appeals by claimants in Helphire cases allowed; appeal by claimant in Burdis v Livsey dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Credit Hire and Repair Agreements, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Compliance, Measure of Damages for Vehicle Repairs and Hire, Double Recovery in Tort, Exempt Agreements Under Consumer Credit Legislation
Consumer Credit Law Tort Law Insurance Law Enforceability of Credit Hire and Repair Agreements Consumer Credit Act 1974 Compliance Measure of Damages for Vehicle Repairs and Hire Double Recovery in Tort Exempt Agreements Under Consumer Credit Legislation

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Clark

Claimant/appellant

Mr Kenneth Tull t/a Ardington Electrical Services

Defendant/respondent

Julian Dennard

Claimant/appellant

Robert Plant

Defendant/respondent

Arjune Sen

Claimant/appellant

Steelform Engineering Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Victor Lagden

Claimant/appellant

Philippa O’Connor

Defendant/respondent

Wendy Burdis

Claimant/appellant

Eric Livsey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeals From Queen’s Bench Division and Oxford County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Helphire’s credit hire and repair agreements are unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the agreements are a pretence to avoid regulation
  3. 3 Whether repair costs are recoverable if the credit agreement is unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The Helphire credit hire and repair agreements are not a pretence and are based on exempt agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The agreements require a single payment within the prescribed period and are not consumer hire agreements as defined by the Act. The insurance arrangements, though artificial, are genuine and payments by Angel Assistance discharge the claimants’ liabilities. Where agreements are unenforceable, repair costs are not recoverable if the claimant has not paid or is not liable to pay, to avoid double recovery. The measure of damages for repairs is the diminution in value, but recovery is limited to sums actually paid or for which the claimant is liable.

Court Disposition

Appeals by claimants in Helphire cases allowed; appeal by claimant in Burdis v Livsey dismissed.

Orders

  • Helphire agreements held enforceable and not a pretence; claimants entitled to recover sums for which they are liable under valid agreements.
  • In Burdis v Livsey, repair costs not recoverable where claimant is not liable to pay due to unenforceable agreement.