London Borough of Islington v Bourous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242 (16 September 2022)

London Borough of Islington v Bourous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242 (16 September 2022)

A defendant in an RTA Protocol claim cannot raise a new argument at Stage 3 that was not raised at Stage 2 in the Court Proceedings Pack; the issues for determination at Stage 3 are limited to those identified at Stage 2. In both appeals, the defendants failed to object in principle to the hire charges at Stage 2 and only disputed the rate, so they were precluded from raising new legal arguments at Stage 3 regarding the proper measure of damages or the need for evidence of loss of profit or impecuniosity.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1242
Parties
Appellant/defendant: London Borough of Islington; Respondent/claimant: Said Bourous; Appellant/defendant: Samantha Davis; Respondent/claimant: Halil Yousaf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (joined Appeals) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From County Court Decisions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; county court decisions upheld.
Legal Topics
RTA Protocol Interpretation, Credit Hire Claims, Loss of Profit Vs. Hire Charges, Impecuniosity in Damages, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Procedure, Admissibility of New Arguments at Stage 3
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law RTA Protocol Interpretation Credit Hire Claims Loss of Profit Vs. Hire Charges Impecuniosity in Damages Stage 2 and Stage 3 Procedure +1 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Islington

Appellant/defendant

Said Bourous

Respondent/claimant

Samantha Davis

Appellant/defendant

Halil Yousaf

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (joined Appeals) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From County Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant can raise new arguments at Stage 3 of the RTA Protocol procedure that were not raised at Stage 2, specifically regarding the correct measure of damages for self-employed taxi drivers (loss of profit vs. hire charges) and the need for evidence of impecuniosity.
  2. 2 Whether the claimants, as self-employed taxi drivers, were entitled to recover hire charges or limited to loss of profit, and what evidence is required under the RTA Protocol.

Ratio Decidendi

A defendant in an RTA Protocol claim cannot raise a new argument at Stage 3 that was not raised at Stage 2 in the Court Proceedings Pack; the issues for determination at Stage 3 are limited to those identified at Stage 2. In both appeals, the defendants failed to object in principle to the hire charges at Stage 2 and only disputed the rate, so they were precluded from raising new legal arguments at Stage 3 regarding the proper measure of damages or the need for evidence of loss of profit or impecuniosity.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; county court decisions upheld.

Orders

  • Defendants precluded from raising new arguments at Stage 3 that were not raised at Stage 2.
  • Claims remitted for Stage 3 hearings limited to issues raised in the Court Proceedings Pack.