In the case of Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP. Zo.o [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, the Court of Appeal delivered a crucial judgment that has wide implications for claims involving credit hire costs, particularly when the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident.

This case addresses the legal complexities around the principle of mitigation and whether the failure to renew an MOT certificate should prevent a Plaintiff from recovering credit hire charges.

 

MOT delays in Northern Ireland

 

MOT delays were already prevalent in NI prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 2020 BBC NI highlighted that faults had been found on 48 out of 55 lifts and that MOT tests were due to be cancelled.

This, coupled with an increasing population, a higher proportion of households with access to a vehicle as well as older vehicles on the road all has resulted in significant delays in MOT testing in NI. Infrastructure Minister for NI Mr John O’Dowd in 2024 outlined an increasingly high demand for MOT tests and confirmed that 1.1 million tests had been carried out in 2023/24.  The highest numbers ever recorded.

 

MOT, Credit Hire and the position in Northern Ireland.

 

Insurers in Northern Ireland are therefore well used to these cases where the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT at the time of the collision but the Plaintiff sought to recover Credit Hire charges.  Morgan v Bryson Recycling Limited and Magill v Donnelly are two cases that come to mind.

Ultimately up until Ali it was held that a court should take a broad view of the circumstances of each case and conduct a case specific inquiry in each case.  For example, a case where the MOT expired a number of years before the accident would be treated differently that a case where the MOT Certificate expired days before the accident.

 

Case Background: The Dispute Over Credit Hire Costs

 

Majid Ali’s vehicle was parked when it was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Plaintiff, sought to recover over £21,500 from a UK insurer – acting as claims handler for a Polish insurer.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle however did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident and the certificate had expired four and a half months earlier.

This raised the question of whether the Plaintiff was legally entitled to recover the hire costs, given that his vehicle was not roadworthy.

The usual battlegrounds for Credit Hire cases were, most helpfully, agreed by the Plaintiff and Defendant;

• The Plaintiff needed to hire a vehicle.
• The length of hire was reasonable.
• The type of car hired was reasonable.
• The Plaintiff was not impecunious.
• The Defendant did not provide any alternative rate evidence

Furthermore, it was not in dispute that the MOT had expired four and a half months before the road traffic accident nor was there any evidence or suggestion that the Plaintiff intended to obtain a new MOT certificate.

At the County Court level, the Plaintiff’s claim for the hire costs was dismissed on the basis of causation.   That is to say, Majid Ali could not establish that the road traffic accident had, as a matter of law, caused any loss because he had lost the ability to drive a non-roadworthy vehicle only, which he was not legally permitted to use on the road.

The decision was upheld by the High Court and Ali appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The key issue on appeal was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the claim for credit hire costs on the grounds of legal causation and the failure to mitigate loss, considering the vehicle could not have been legally driven due to the expired MOT.

 

The Court of Appeal’s Judgment

 

The Court of Appeal revisited and applied earlier case law, notably Hewison v Meridian Shipping [2002] EWCA Civ 1821, and concluded that the minor criminal offence of failing to maintain an MOT certificate should not bar the claimant from recovering credit hire charges.

He disagreed with the Defendant’s submissions that the Plaintiff had suffered no “loss” as a result of the accident.  He relied on Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647 is asserting that;

A claimant’s loss is the lack of advantage and inconvenience caused by not having the use of a car ready at hand and at all hours for personal and/or family use.  [The accident] causes the claimant to be deprived of the use of an item of property, which causes inconvenience in the form of inability to use it for private transport. The fact that a claimant does not have a valid MOT certificate for the car does not alter the fact that they have been deprived of its use or the fact that this deprivation would have caused inconvenience but for the hiring.

The absence of a valid MOT certificate was irrelevant to the fact that the Plaintiff was deprived of his vehicle and required a replacement.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith acknowledged that driving without an MOT certificate is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. However, he classified this as a relatively minor infraction, which should not bar recovery of credit hire costs. He noted that the court’s role was to address the direct consequences of the defendant’s negligence – in this case, the loss of the use of the vehicle – and not the minor collateral offence of an expired MOT.

The minor nature of the illegality in this case was insufficient to prevent recovery of the hire charges. The court revisited and reapplied referenced Hewison in stating that a court should not deprive a Plaintiff of damages merely due to a collateral or insignificant illegal act, such as the expired MOT.

Thus, while I would accept that allowing the claim for hire charges in the present case may just about be said to tend towards being harmful to the integrity of the legal system, any harm is in my view strictly limited, leading clearly to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to have refused the Claimant’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa.

 

Broader Legal Implications

 

This ruling has significant implications for both Plaintiffs and Insurers in the context of credit hire claims namely:

1. Minor Traffic Offences Do Not Automatically Bar Claims: The court established that driving a vehicle without MOT was a relatively minor traffic violation on par with having defective windscreen wipers, or a defective lamp, or a non-conforming number plate and it should not preclude a claimant from recovering credit hire costs.
2. Causation and Mitigation of Loss: The court clarified that the absence of a valid MOT certificate does not alter the fact that the Plaintiff’s loss – the inability to use the vehicle due to the accident – was caused by the defendant’s negligence. As a result, the claimant was entitled to recover the costs for a replacement hire vehicle.
3. Potential for Future Cases: Although the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, it acknowledged that there may be cases in the future where more serious traffic offences – such as driving without insurance or with dangerous tyres – could potentially bar a claim or result in a reduction of damages. However, in this case, the court accepted that the failure to renew the MOT certificate was a minor offence and did not warrant a reduction in the claimant’s recovery.

 

Conclusion

 

The Ali v HSF Logistics case draws a conclusion under the long history of this case and similar cases involving a lack of MOT. However, “yet another skirmish-cum-battle in the overall “secular war” between the credit hire industry and defendants’ insurers” continues.

Contact Ruaidhri Austin, Partner in charge of Lacey Solicitors Credit Hire team if you have any questions or require legal advice in any similar cases.