Introduction
The legal history of personal injury and road traffic accident claims has seen numerous precedents set and one such case was Bent v Highways and Utility Services Limited [2010] EWCA Cave 292. The difference means the hire of a replacement vehicle on credit terms following an accident can be recovered by a claimant if they were unable to pay for it in advance, as clarified by this judgment of the Court of Appeal which in doing so resolved the long-standing controversy on the issue. Since being handed down, the decision has had wide-ranging effects for both claimants and insurers.
Case Background
THE BACKGROUND TO THIS LEGAL BATTLE The underlying incident which sparked this courtroom showdown was a road traffic accident where the claimant, Mr. Bent, suffered damage to his vehicle because of the negligence of the defendant, Highways and Utility Services Limited. Mr. Bent could not afford the immediate cost of hiring a replacement vehicle, so he signed into a credit hire agreement. In other words, he was able to postpone payment until the conclusion of his claim.
Legal Issues
The case involved an important point of law; whether after a road traffic accident a claimant is entitled to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle on credit hire terms. It is a good question and a fair one, as it speaks to the financial reality many injury victims face. Credit Hire is a pragmatic solution for many not immediately in a position to hire a replacement vehicle. This ensures that claimants are not prejudiced by their financial status.
Court of Appeal’s Ruling
However, in a key judgment, the Court of Appeal found in Mr. Bent’s favor, and confirmed that claimants could recover the cost of hire of a replacement vehicle on credit terms. The court relied on the ancient concept of full compensation. Damages in tort law are designed to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in but for the tort. It would, on this approach, leave Mr. Bent less well-off simply because he could not afford to pay up front.
The court took into account prior precedents and legal principles as well. It stated that what mattered was the requirement and reasonableness of the hire, not the claimant’s financial position. If the rate at which the credit hire was charged was reasonable and necessary, then the claimant should be able to recover that.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision in Bent v Highways and Utility Services Limited has had far-reaching implications on other cases and personal injury and road traffic accident claims in general. What this decision means for claimants is that in the face of financial barriers they will still be able to obtain relief for necessary replacement vehicles. It would ensure victims of accidents are not placed at an undue disadvantage, and to be kept mobile while claims are under process.
The ruling requires a considerable rethink for insurers and defendants when it comes to credit hire claims. Instead, they will need to look carefully at the costs of the hire and whether a replacement vehicle is actually needed in addition to taking into account the claimants ability to pay up front. And this in turn has affected the way in which claims are managed and is making insurers rethink their approach to credit hire management
Criticism and Support
Like any major legal decision, this ruling has drawn its share of critics and backers. Opponents said the plan could encourage fraudulent claims and drive up insurers’ costs, which would raise premiums for consumers. You might reasonably infer something to that effect, but they say the ruling might have an even more damaging effect; giving claimants and incentive to choose the higher cost credit hire options, knowing those costs are recoverable. Backers, though, made the case it was the right and workable move.
They pointed out that the ruling was consistent with the bedrock principle of full compensation that tells us that claimants not be penalized for their lack of money. In permitting recovery of credit hire costs, the judgment, ensures that accident victims are not unjustly penalized and can properly access the remedies that they seek and need.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bent v Highways and Utility Services Limited [2010] EWCA Cave 292, which was handed down on 24th March 2010 represents a significant development in the law of personal injury generally and more particularly of road traffic accident claims. This delivers a proper and just solution to one of the worst injustices that many accident victims have to deal with — that need to get credit hire and the cost of that is not recovered.
This ruling confirms the principle that claimants are entitled to full compensation and that their ability to obtain necessary remedies should not be undermined by financial constraints. With the legal landscape rapidly changing, this judgment still rules the roost in the fight of justice and fair-play when it comes to road traffic accidents.