Author: Howard Tilney
Published: August 9, 2024
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 6 months old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
…claim dismissed!
So was the outcome of a recent hearing in respect of a claim by a former friend and colleague (favourable status now revoked) against one of our service and repair garage members alleging breach of contract arising from repair services provided to the Claimant.
Under cross-examination, it was apparent the Claimant had made assumptions that our member’s work was faulty, even though he might have known better and had no real evidence to suggest the extant problems with his vehicle were in any way related to the repairs that had been undertaken on his behalf by our member.
Further, it was submitted on behalf of our member that evidence given from a third party should be limited to zero weight since it was not substantiated.
As for quantum, being the amount of damages sought by the Claimant if his claim was successful, it was further submitted these were not recoverable losses in any event.
Suffice it to say, the judge took no great time and little persuasion to determine that on the facts, the Claimant was unable to satisfy the burden of proof and duly dismissed his claim.
