Greg Standing of Wragge & Co looks at the case of Singh v Yaqubi.
When faced with a car hire claim, the onus is on the claimant to show a reasonable need for a replacement vehicle. The court will not find the need ‘self-proved’.
Go deeper with GlobalData
This was confirmed in the Court of Appeal decision in Singh v Yaqubi (2013) in which Singh claimed £92,953.90 in car hire costs after a Rolls-Royce used by his property development business was dented in a road traffic accident.
Singh gave evidence that a replacement Rolls-Royce was needed during the 54 days the damaged one was being repaired. It was required in order to maintain the ‘correct impression’ of a successful business.
However, the business also had six other prestigious cars at its disposal (including a Mercedes, a Bugatti and a Porsche).
At first instance, the judge held that as the need for a replacement Rolls-Royce had been put in issue in the defence, given the availability of other vehicles, the burden of proof was on Singh to prove actual need for a replacement. However, no evidence had been
adduced as to the actual use of the Rolls-Royce prior to the accident, nor what the replacement had been used for during the hire period. This could have been proved by reference to a diary or evidence of those who drove the vehicle, but was noticeably absent.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataThe judge held that when the claim is for such a large sum, the cogency of a claimant’s evidence should be much greater.
There was no clear evidence upon which the court could conclude that need had been proved. The hire claim was dismissed in its entirety. Singh unsuccessfully appealed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that as ‘need’ had been put in issue by Yaqubi, Singh had to establish it. The judge was not required to infer need.
It was only once need had been established that Yaqubi then had to show the need had not been met in a reasonable manner.
The court held such large hire claims should be scrutinised carefully by the court and particularly where a business had a fleet of prestigious cars available for its use.
No specific evidence of need had been adduced and the judge had been entitled to hold that the need for a replacement vehicle
had not been established.
Therefore, there was no requirement to determine a reasonable rate of hire. The appeal was dismissed.
Comment
When faced with a claim for car hire, where the claim is substantial and on behalf of a business, a claimant should be put to proof that it does in fact need a replacement vehicle of the type claimed.
It is only once that hurdle has been cleared that the reasonableness of the hire charge comes into play.
Greg Standing is a partner in Wragge & Co’s motor finance litigation team
