Copley v Lawn & Ors

Copley v Lawn & Ors

It is not unreasonable for a claimant to reject or ignore an offer from a defendant or their insurer that does not specify the cost of hire to the defendant, as the claimant cannot make a realistic comparison. If a claimant unreasonably rejects such an offer, they are still entitled to recover at least the cost the defendant would have incurred, not a total bar to recovery. In these cases, there was no evidence the defendants could have provided a replacement car more cheaply than the claimants' arrangements, so the claimants are entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Parties
Appellant: Julie Copley; Respondent: Kenneth Lawn; Appellant: Iain Maden; Respondent: D. Haller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Mitigation of Loss, Damages for Loss of Use, Credit Hire, Offers in Kind, Subrogated Claims
Tort Insurance Law Mitigation of Loss Damages for Loss of Use Credit Hire Offers in Kind Subrogated Claims

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Copley

Appellant

Kenneth Lawn

Respondent

Iain Maden

Appellant

D. Haller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant acts unreasonably in rejecting a defendant insurer's offer of a replacement car after a road accident
  2. 2 Whether refusal of such an offer amounts to a failure to mitigate loss, barring or reducing recovery of hire charges
  3. 3 Whether a claimant who unreasonably rejects such an offer is entitled to any damages for loss of use

Ratio Decidendi

It is not unreasonable for a claimant to reject or ignore an offer from a defendant or their insurer that does not specify the cost of hire to the defendant, as the claimant cannot make a realistic comparison. If a claimant unreasonably rejects such an offer, they are still entitled to recover at least the cost the defendant would have incurred, not a total bar to recovery. In these cases, there was no evidence the defendants could have provided a replacement car more cheaply than the claimants' arrangements, so the claimants are entitled to recover the sums claimed.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants for the sums claimed.