Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1339 (19 October 2022)

Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1339 (19 October 2022)

The trial judge's finding that the drainage channel was cleared during the May 2019 service was rationally supportable on the evidence, and the car was not of satisfactory quality under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; the appellant failed to show the judge was plainly wrong.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 1339
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring; Appellant/defendant: GVE London Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Satisfactory Quality of Goods, Implied Terms, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Appeals on Findings of Fact
Consumer Law Contract Law Satisfactory Quality of Goods Implied Terms Consumer Rights Act 2015 Appeals on Findings of Fact

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Kynaston-Mainwaring

Respondent/claimant

GVE London Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's factual findings regarding the servicing of the drainage channel in May 2019 were plainly wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's finding that the drainage channel was cleared during the May 2019 service was rationally supportable on the evidence, and the car was not of satisfactory quality under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; the appellant failed to show the judge was plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld; Appellant to refund £117,000 to respondent less £5,000 for use and pay £1,334 in damages.