On the 8th of March 2021, judgments in two credit hire appeals were handed down in Northern Ireland’s Queen’s Bench Division. In McKibbin v UK Insurance Ltd and Clarke v McEvoy [2021] NIQB 27 & 28, the Queen’s Bench Division in Northern Ireland addressed how courts should approach credit hire claims where delay is alleged. Crucially, it held that if the plaintiff delegates control of their claim to an accident management company, that company (and its chosen assessors or solicitors) may be considered the plaintiff’s agent. Any unreasonable delay in progressing repairs or assessments can therefore be imputed to the plaintiff, allowing insurers to reduce credit hire awards accordingly. However, repair garages remain outside this agency framework, and minor delays will not justify a reduction. The decisions strike a careful balance between holding claimants accountable and avoiding a “counsel of perfection”.
Case 1: McKibbin v UK Insurance Ltd [2021] NIQB 27
Background
Mrs Karen McKibbin, a primary school teacher, was involved in a non-fault collision on 18 October 2018. Her Audi A3 was damaged and rendered unroadworthy. The next day, she contacted an accident management company, which:
- Provided a replacement hire vehicle;
- Arranged recovery of her damaged vehicle to an authorised repair centre;
- Appointed a solicitor to act on her behalf;
- Instructed an independent engineer to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage.
She was supplied with a Mercedes A180 hire vehicle, which she used for 37 days. Her own car was repaired and ready for collection on 22 November 2018. She collected it two days later. Her claim included:
- £6,909.34 in hire charges;
- £2,460.00 for diminution in value.
The County Court reduced the recoverable hire period by 9 days and allowed only partial diminution in value. The plaintiff appealed.
The Judgment
Justice Scoffield upheld the principle that where a plaintiff delegates full control of their claim to an accident management company, that company acts as their agent. Consequently:
- Delays caused by the accident management company, the engineer, or the solicitors it instructs may be attributed to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff had clearly entrusted all aspects of the claim to the accident management company, including the appointment of experts and legal representatives.
- However, the garage itself was not an agent of the plaintiff. Delays that occur during the actual repair period remain outside the plaintiff’s control.
Despite this agency analysis, the High Court ultimately reduced the hire period by just 1 day, restoring 8 days previously deducted by the County Court. The court also reassessed the diminution in value claim, concluding that neither party’s expert had presented a fully persuasive figure. Justice Scoffield awarded 7.5% of the car’s pre-accident value, a compromise between the 5% and 12% expert valuations.
Case 2: Clarke v McEvoy [2021] NIQB 28
Background
Mrs Rhonda Clarke’s Ford Fiesta was damaged in a rear-end collision on 14 October 2018. Her husband had been driving. The car was declared a total loss. She contacted an accident management company which:
- Delivered a replacement hire vehicle within hours;
- Sent documents for her to sign;
- Instructed solicitors to pursue the claim;
- Arranged an engineer to assess the vehicle.
The engineer was formally instructed on 18 October and conducted his inspection on 24 October. His report was sent to the defendant’s insurer on 29 October. The insurer issued a cheque for the pre-accident value of the vehicle on 15 November, and the hire ended one week later when the plaintiff purchased a replacement.
The plaintiff claimed for 38 days of hire. The County Court awarded only 29 days. She appealed.
The Judgment
Justice Scoffield conducted a detailed, stage-by-stage assessment of the timeline and reached the following conclusions:
- Two days of hire were disallowed due to an unreasonable delay between the plaintiff engaging the accident management company and the engineer being instructed.
- The engineer’s delay (six days from instruction to inspection) was found to be reasonable, given his court commitments, workload and the geographic location of the vehicle.
- The 17-day delay between engineer’s report and payment of the cheque could not be attributed to the plaintiff, who had no control over the insurer’s processing time.
- Once the cheque cleared, the plaintiff purchased a replacement vehicle promptly.
As with McKibbin, the court applied an agency framework: the accident management company and its instructed experts were acting as agents of the plaintiff, and their actions could be scrutinised accordingly.
Legal Implications for Insurers
These conjoined decisions clarify several important points for defendants and insurers handling credit hire claims in Northern Ireland:
1. Accident Management Companies as Agents
Where a plaintiff engages an accident management company and relies on it to handle repairs, hire and legal representation, the company and its agents (solicitors, engineers) are considered to act on the plaintiff’s behalf. Insurers may now challenge hire duration by pointing to delays caused by those parties, which will be treated as failures to mitigate.
2. Repair Garages Are Not Agents
By contrast, repair garages were not found to be agents or sub-agents. Delays occurring after the vehicle has been delivered to a garage—such as queuing for a slot or labour scheduling—will not be attributed to the plaintiff. The traditional protection afforded by Mattocks v Mann remains intact for this phase of the claim.
3. Careful Scrutiny of Delay Is Permitted
The court adopted a detailed approach to assessing each stage of the hire period:
- Accident to engineer instruction;
- Engineer instruction to inspection;
- Inspection to report;
- Report to settlement.
Where unexplained or unreasonable delay exists in the earlier stages, it can result in days being disallowed. However, the burden is on the defendant to establish that delay and demonstrate its materiality.
4. No ‘Counsel of Perfection’
The court was clear that minor or practical delays will not justify reductions. Plaintiffs are not expected to operate with perfect efficiency. For example, in McKibbin, the plaintiff’s two-day delay in collecting her repaired car (due to teaching commitments) was accepted as reasonable.
Guidance for Insurers
These judgments equip insurers with a structured framework for defending against overlong hire claims:
- Obtain a full timeline of the hire, repair, and communication process;
- Identify where delays occurred, and who was responsible;
- Challenge delay at the instruction and assessment stages, where agency can be argued;
- Avoid contesting de minimis periods of delay or those caused by third-party garages.
Where claimants have surrendered control of the process to an accident management company, insurers are now entitled to probe that arrangement and seek appropriate reductions in the hire period where delay arises.
Contact Ruaidhrí Austin for Credit Hire Support
Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors and head of the firm’s credit hire department, regularly provides training, litigation advice and claims strategy support to insurers across thje entire island of Ireland.
Ruaidhrí advises on:
- Duration and rate disputes;
- Agency and mitigation arguments;
- Expert evidence in credit hire;
- Strategic defence of high-volume claims.
To arrange a training session or to discuss any aspect of credit hire litigation, contact Ruaidhrí through our secure online portal.
