Highways England Company Ltd v Tesco Underwriting Ltd [2020] EW Misc 24 (CC) (21 August 2020)

Highways England Company Ltd v Tesco Underwriting Ltd [2020] EW Misc 24 (CC) (21 August 2020)

Kier Highways Limited had contractual authority to bring claims in the name of Highways England for damages to highway property, but such authority was limited by the terms of the relevant contracts and did not extend to profit uplifts not expressly provided for. The claims were not champertous as Kier had a genuine commercial interest. The proper measure of damages is the diminution in value, assessed by the reasonable cost of repair, which should be determined by reference to blended market rates and appropriate industry uplifts, not strictly by contract rates or unsubstantiated claims.

Citation
[2020] EW Misc 24 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Highways England Company Ltd; Defendant: Tesco Underwriting Ltd; Defendant: Mr Jonathan Martyn Booth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages for Negligence (property Damage) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Measure of Damages, Champerty, Authority to Sue, Diminution in Value, Reasonable Cost of Repair, Subrogation, Highways Maintenance Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Measure of Damages Champerty Authority to Sue Diminution in Value Reasonable Cost of Repair +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Highways England Company Ltd

Claimant

Tesco Underwriting Ltd

Defendant

Mr Jonathan Martyn Booth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages for Negligence (property Damage) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kier Highways Limited had authority to bring claims in the name of Highways England for damages caused by negligent motorists to highway property.
  2. 2 Whether the claims brought were champertous and an abuse of process.
  3. 3 How the diminution in value of damaged highway property should be assessed where repairs are carried out under a lump sum contract.

Ratio Decidendi

Kier Highways Limited had contractual authority to bring claims in the name of Highways England for damages to highway property, but such authority was limited by the terms of the relevant contracts and did not extend to profit uplifts not expressly provided for. The claims were not champertous as Kier had a genuine commercial interest. The proper measure of damages is the diminution in value, assessed by the reasonable cost of repair, which should be determined by reference to blended market rates and appropriate industry uplifts, not strictly by contract rates or unsubstantiated claims.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in both actions for damages assessed as follows: Tesco action £5479.78; Booth action (amount not specified in truncated text, but calculation methodology provided).
  • Damages limited to reasonable cost of repair as determined by the court, not the full pleaded sums.