Oliver Nunn has represented a Defendant’s insurer in a case involving a taxi driver who claimed, amongst other losses, c. £41,500 for credit hire and c. £5,000 for storage, in circumstances where his vehicle was a total loss.

Oliver was successful in arguing that the Claimant should have made use of his own insurance policy to mitigate his losses in that regard, rather than the conventional position being that a tortfeasor cannot criticise the Claimant for failing to do so, as per Bradburn v. Great Western Railway (1874) and Clarke v. McCullough [2012].

The learned Judge was persuaded that principles such as that in Opoku v. Tintas [2013] were applicable and reduced the period of both hire and storage accordingly.

The effect was that only c. £11,000 was awarded for credit hire and c. £750 for storage.

This was a good result for the client and dealt with an interesting point which is often dealt with too swiftly by the Courts, relying on the Bradburn and Clarke principles, to the detriment of Defendant insurers. The decision has now been reported on Westlaw: Rashid v. Naylor [2018] WLUK 363.