Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 2534 (Comm) (8 June 2006)

Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 2534 (Comm) (8 June 2006)

The paragraphs of the defence alleging failure to mitigate by not accepting a free car from RSA are struck out because the claimant was contractually obliged to accept DAS's choice of hire company, had no knowledge or notice of the RSA scheme, and no specific offer was made to him. The defence discloses no reasonable grounds and is unsustainable in law.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2534 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Douglas Bee; Defendant: Carl Jenson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Court) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out of Defence Paragraphs
Outcome
Application granted; paragraphs 9 to 12 of the reamended Defence struck out.
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Subrogation, Summary Judgment, Agency, Motor Insurance, Credit Hire
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Mitigation of Loss Subrogation Summary Judgment Agency Motor Insurance Credit Hire

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Bee

Claimant

Carl Jenson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Court) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out of Defence Paragraphs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to mitigate his loss by not accepting a free replacement car allegedly available from the defendant's insurer
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the claimant's insurer (DAS) about the defendant's scheme is attributable to the claimant for mitigation purposes
  3. 3 Whether paragraphs 9 to 12 of the reamended Defence disclose a reasonable defence in law

Ratio Decidendi

The paragraphs of the defence alleging failure to mitigate by not accepting a free car from RSA are struck out because the claimant was contractually obliged to accept DAS's choice of hire company, had no knowledge or notice of the RSA scheme, and no specific offer was made to him. The defence discloses no reasonable grounds and is unsustainable in law.

Court Disposition

Application granted; paragraphs 9 to 12 of the reamended Defence struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 9 to 12 of the reamended Defence are struck out under CPR 3.4.