A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law
By : Jasmine Murphy
The House of Lords delivered judgment on 4th December 2003 in five test cases: Clark v Tull; Dennard v Plant ; Sen v Steelform Engineering Ltd; Lagden v O’Connor; Burdis v Livsey  TLR 5/12/2003. This marked another step forward for Claimants involved in road traffic accidents who use credit hire companies for car hire after the accident.
That if a Claimant can show he was impecunious, or unable to hire a car from an ordinary car hire company, he can recover the full cost of hiring a car through a credit hire scheme.
You will remember that the principle in Dimond v Lovell was that the value of additional benefits resulting to Claimants as a result of using credit hire schemes were held to be irrecoverable.
Instead, their Lordships recommended that spot hire rates should be used. Almost overnight, the issue of credit hire appeared to be dead.
However, the House of Lords has distinguished Dimond v Lovell by upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision in the fourth test case, Lagden v O’Connor.
Mr Lagden was unemployed, in poor health, had little money, no overdraft facility and could not afford to hire a car after the accident without using a credit hire company. The judge at first instance held that Mr Lagden could recover the reasonable costs of the credit hire scheme, including, as it did, certain sums which would not normally be recoverable. The insurers appealed on the basis that, as in Dimond v Lovell, the part of the credit hire charges which did not equate to cost of repair and car hire had to be stripped out.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s first instance decision and reinforced the principle that you take your victim as you find him. They reasoned that in light of Mr Lagden’s limited means, there was no reasonable alternative to a credit hire scheme. This was the best way in which he could mitigate his loss. Therefore he was entitled to recover the full cost of the scheme. The House of Lords upheld this decision.
Defendants will pounce on Lord Hope of Craighead’s words at paragraph 42 of the judgment
“in practice the dividing line is likely to lie between those who have, and those who do not have, the benefit of a recognised credit or debit card.”
So could Lord Scott of Foscote in paragraph 87. He referred to people who keep large quantities of cash in their houses but do not have credit or debit cards who would benefit under this test. On the other hand he described those with bank accounts and overdraft facilities who have no spare cash but the facility to borrow who would not be viewed as impecunious under the test.
The Lords only said that it was “likely” that this would be the test in practice. The criterion that must be applied is
“whether he had a choice – whether it would have been open to him to go into the market and hire a car at the ordinary rates from an ordinary car hire company”.
Lord Hope then narrowed this down to the test encapsulated above when he said
“it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be some car owners who will be unable to produce an acceptable credit or debit card and will not have the money in hand to pay for the hire in cash before collection. In their case the cost of paying for the provision of additional services by a credit hire company must be attributed in law not to the choice of the motorist but to the act or omission of the wrongdoer. That is Mr Lagden’s case. In law the money which he spent to obtain the services of the credit hire company is recoverable.”
(paragraphs 35 – 37).
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in paragraph 9 that what is meant by impecunious is
“inability to pay car hire charges without making sacrifices the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to make.”
o there is still scope for making out a case for impecuniousity even if the Claimant does not fall within the stricter credit/debit card test Lord Hope favoured.
The Court of Appeal judgment in the five test cases ( 3 WLR 762) is very useful and sets out all the relevant points on credit hire, what is/is not recoverable etc.
The leading judgment of Lord Nicholls is the most digestible.
  2 WLR 1121
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.
Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. However if you have any other queries about this content please contact: