Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd

Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd

The judge was not entitled to disregard the binding precedent of Copley v Lawn, which requires that a claimant cannot be found to have acted unreasonably in refusing a defendant's offer unless made aware that by doing so she would increase the ultimate burden on the defendant; procedural irregularity occurred when the judge decided the case on a basis contrary to the parties' arguments without notice.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Carly Sayce; Defendant/respondent: TNT (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

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 judge was bound to follow the Court of Appeal decision in Copley v Lawn
  3. 3 Consequences of unreasonable failure to mitigate loss

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was not entitled to disregard the binding precedent of Copley v Lawn, which requires that a claimant cannot be found to have acted unreasonably in refusing a defendant's offer unless made aware that by doing so she would increase the ultimate burden on the defendant; procedural irregularity occurred when the judge decided the case on a basis contrary to the parties' arguments without notice.

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.