Singh v Yaqubi

Singh v Yaqubi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide specific and detailed evidence of the need for a replacement Rolls Royce during the repair period. The trial judge was entitled to require such evidence, especially given the existence of a fleet of other vehicles, and was not required to infer need from general statements. There was no appearance of bias sufficient to vitiate the judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Hardip Singh; Respondent: Rashed Yaqubi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Bias, Special Damages, Motor Vehicle Accidents
Tort Civil Procedure Damages Mitigation of Loss Bias Special Damages Motor Vehicle Accidents

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardip Singh

Appellant

Rashed Yaqubi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge demonstrated apparent bias against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established a reasonable need for a replacement Rolls Royce during the repair period
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the claim for hire charges

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide specific and detailed evidence of the need for a replacement Rolls Royce during the repair period. The trial judge was entitled to require such evidence, especially given the existence of a fleet of other vehicles, and was not required to infer need from general statements. There was no appearance of bias sufficient to vitiate the judgment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed