Yousaf (claimant/respondent) v Davis (defendant/appellant)

Tuesday 21 – Wednesday 22 June 2022

Yousaf (claimant/respondent) v Davis (defendant/appellant)

Bourous (claimant/respondent) v London Borough of Islington (defendant/appellant)

Yousaf – By Appellants Notice filed on 28 May 2021 the Defendant (D) appeals the order of HHJ Sykes dated 7 May 2021 sitting at Liverpool County Court on a Birkenhead County Court claim,

(1) dismissing D’s appeal from the order of DDJ Grosscurth dated 5 August 2020 and
(2) making a consequential summarily assessed costs order

The appeal arises out of the assessment of damages at Stage 3 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol) . C brought a personal injury claim under the Protocol following a road traffic accident on 31 December 2018. D’s insurer admitted liability. At Stage 2 of the Protocol C (who was a taxi driver at the time) made a claim for recovery of car hire charges under a credit hire agreement and relied on impecuniosity. D challenged the credit hire charge element.

D says the case raises an important point of principle as to the approach to claims for credit hire charges under the Protocol which depend upon the Claimant establishing impecuniosity. D suggests it will affect large numbers of similar claims.

Bourous – By Appellants Notice filed 26 January 2021 the Defendant (D) appeals the order of HHJ Hellman dated 12 January 2021, inter alia, allowing the Claimant (C)’s appeal against the order of DDJ Evans dated 21 July 2020, quashing paragraph 4 of the DDJ’s order, awarding C credit hire in the sum claimed , and varying the order so as to give judgment for C, and varying the costs order made by the DDJ and making a consequential costs order in respect of the appeal.

DDJ Evans gave judgment for C on his personal injury claim and for storage costs, and made a summarily assessed costs order. He dismissed C’s claim for credit hire on the basis C should have made a claim for loss of profit; applying Hussain v EUI Limited [2019] EWHC 2647 (QB). He declined to transfer the claim to Part 7.

C was a licensed taxi driver. He claimed damages for personal injury, vehicle storage costs and for credit hire while his vehicle was being repaired ( the largest element of his claim).

Liability was admitted at Stage 1 of the RTA Protocol but the parties could not agree on damages at Stage 2 so the case proceeded to a Stage 3 hearing before DDJ Evans.

View hearing:

Day 1

Part 1 (external link)

Part 2 (external link)

Day 2

Part 1 (external link)