Author: Jason Williams
Published: July 19, 2021
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 3 years 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.
In a long running case, our client was the second Defendant where the Claimant, a taxi driver, was attempting to recover his loss of earnings for alleged (but denied) failed repairs.
The taxi driver Claimant was also seeking to get a refund of all payments he made to the first Defendant, a finance company, even though he had owned the car for almost three years and done more than 70,000 miles in it. Optimistic? Well, the most bizarre was about to follow….
For the Claimant’s lawyers sought to increase the amount of the total claim from £20,000 to an eyewatering loss of earnings claim of £300,000! Yes, three hundred thousand pounds! It was, in brief, a claim for over £50,000 worth of annual losses up to 2024! As I said, wholly bizarre.
Suffice to say, the judge refused outright and denied the claim to be increased by any amount whatsoever. Although this was a preliminary hearing, the judge’s final comments to the Claimant’s lawyer included he hoped her client had: “…very deep pockets.”
Our client was awarded their advocate’s costs of telephone attendance of £540.
