Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Lionel Smith |
| Date: |
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:20:09 |
| Re: |
Surrey Breakdown |
You can find Surrey
Breakdown Ltd. v. Knight on the web at
It is a fascinating case, and one of some practical importance;
though as the brief judgment notes, on such facts there is a statutory
route to recovery (see below) not relied upon by these plaintiffs. The
county court judge thought that their claim was rather excessive - not
so much the £120 to tow the car, but the £10 per day storage which amounted
to £3500 by the time the statement of claim was issued. The car owner
counterclaimed for damage and loss of use, £750. The trial judge allowed
the claim to the extent of £563 and dismissed the counterclaim. The car
owner successfully appealed against the judge's decision on the main claim,
but his appeal on the dismissal of the counterclaim was dismissed. So
both claim and counterclaim came to nothing.
It is a shame, albeit an understandable one, that neither
party seems to have engaged professional representation.
On the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions
(ss 100-2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) the court referred
to its earlier decision in Service Motor Policies at Lloyd's v City Recovery
Ltd, 9th July 1997, also unreported but available at
Parliament has effectively overridden part of the Falcke
dictum, in one narrow set of facts. Garages who act on police instructions
do not get a right of recovery against victims of car theft, but they
do get a lien on the car to secure payment of the authorised fees.
Lionel
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
