Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1583 (19 December 2011)

Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1583 (19 December 2011)

The appeal was allowed because the judge below was not entitled to decide the case on a basis fundamentally different from that on which it had been argued, and was bound to apply the principles set out in Copley v Lawn, which require that a claimant cannot be found to have acted unreasonably in refusing a defendant's offer unless made aware that doing so would increase the defendant's burden.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1583
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Carly Sayce; Defendant/respondent: TNT (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Credit Hire, Damages, Road Traffic Accident, Precedent
Tort Civil Procedure Mitigation of Loss Credit Hire Damages Road Traffic Accident Precedent

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

Parties

Carly Sayce

Claimant/appellant

TNT (UK) Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant acted unreasonably in failing to accept the defendant's offer of a replacement vehicle at no cost
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's failure to accept the offer precluded recovery of damages for hire charges
  3. 3 Whether the lower court was bound to follow the Court of Appeal's decision in Copley v Lawn

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge below was not entitled to decide the case on a basis fundamentally different from that on which it had been argued, and was bound to apply the principles set out in Copley v Lawn, which require that a claimant cannot be found to have acted unreasonably in refusing a defendant's offer unless made aware that doing so would increase the defendant's burden.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to appeal to the Supreme Court refused.

Orders

  • Order for costs below set aside.
  • Case re-allocated to the multi-track for costs in the Court of Appeal only.