Bee v Jenson

Bee v Jenson

The paragraphs of the Defence alleging failure to mitigate by not accepting the RSA scheme are struck out because the claimant was contractually obliged to accept DAS's choice of hire company, was never informed of the RSA scheme, and cannot be fixed with DAS's knowledge of it. There was no real choice or offer made to the claimant, and the Defence discloses no reasonable grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Douglas Bee; Defendant: Carl Jenson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
application granted in part
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Agency, Subrogation, Credit Hire, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Insurance Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Mitigation of Loss Agency Subrogation Credit Hire Summary Judgment +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Bee

Claimant

Carl Jenson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

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 (RSA)
  2. 2 Whether the knowledge of the claimant's legal expenses insurer (DAS) regarding the RSA scheme can be imputed to the claimant for the purposes of mitigation
  3. 3 Whether paragraphs 9 to 12 of the reamended Defence disclose a reasonable defence or should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The paragraphs of the Defence alleging failure to mitigate by not accepting the RSA scheme are struck out because the claimant was contractually obliged to accept DAS's choice of hire company, was never informed of the RSA scheme, and cannot be fixed with DAS's knowledge of it. There was no real choice or offer made to the claimant, and the Defence discloses no reasonable grounds.

Court Disposition

application granted in part

Orders

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