Proceedings were issued just before the expiry of the 6-year limitation period. From the outset, the claimant advanced substantial figures: repair costs of £76,074.65, storage charges of £148,434 and rising, £16,299.40 in diminution, and £718,996.98 for loss of use, said to be accruing at £327.86 per day. The claimant asserted that overall losses were increasing by an additional £405.86 each day.
Covéa, insurer of the at fault vehicle didn’t initially receive a report of the claim from their policyholder. Whilst the claimant notified them of the matter and provided CCTV footage to support that a genuine collision had occurred, this wasn’t until a significant time after the collision and on Covéa agreeing to deal with the claim, the claimant failed to engage further in evidencing their losses pre litigation. Once involved, between ourselves and Covéa, we quickly identified several issues that would become central to the litigation.
Questions arose regarding who owned the Ferrari (the V5 was still in the name of a dissolved company), whether it had been repaired, and whether the losses claimed to be ongoing genuinely continued.
Publicly available MOT records cast doubt on the claim. Although the Ferrari was a prestige vehicle, its testing history showed long periods without a valid MOT (including at the time of the incident), changes of ownership and negligible mileage year to year. The car passed an MOT six days after the incident, and also passed subsequent MOTs. The MOT certificate ultimately expired in October 2020 without renewal. Between July 2018 and October 2019, the car travelled 337 miles—similar to the mileage accumulated in the six years before the accident.
The claimant’s engineering evidence did little to support his case. It wrongly stated that the Ferrari had a valid MOT at the time of the accident and claimed that a door would not open or lock—something that would have meant an MOT failure if such defects existed. The report included 32 images, none showing the alleged door damage.
Another significant part of the claim involved storage charges, justified on the basis that the Ferrari had been repaired but was being withheld by the repairer due to non‑payment. However, the invoices submitted turned out to be pro forma only, and there was no evidence that repairs had actually been carried out.
Once challenged, the claimant conceded the work had not been completed, and that the pleadings (and threat of contractual interest) were an "error". We had utilised the services of Service Certainty who had obtained photographs of the vehicle in an unrepaired state outside the garage – repairs not having been started - and were waiting to see if the Claimant made the concession before revealing our hand!
The Claimant having admitted the "error" allowed us to inspect the vehicle by which point stripping had taken place – which helpfully enabled the engineer to see that the vehicle was in a poor condition with a bad respray which would have detracted from it's desirability – something not mentioned by the Claimant's engineer whose evidence they later ditched.
Remarkably, the garage who "invoiced" for the repairs – which was not the actual repairing garage - was ultimately shown to be controlled by the claimant. At various stages, he was its sole director. This created the implausible scenario in which the claimant was effectively holding his own vehicle hostage and charging himself storage fees, when the repairs had not been undertaken in any event. The claimant’s attempt to obscure this connection raised further questions about the reliability of the pleaded case.
The repair costs were also alleged by the Defendant to be exaggerated, the Claimant seeking to recover the cost of a wholesale renovation of the vehicle, when at most repairs to the front wing and door were required, which the Defendant's engineer estimated to cost no more than £20,000.
The diminution claim, supported by a desktop expert report, appeared inconsistent with the condition of the vehicle described in the Claimant's engineering evidence, again which evidence the Claimant ceased to rely upon during the course of the proceedings.
In respect of the claim for loss of use, case law, including Bee v Jenson and Alexander v Rolls Royce, Bee distinguishing cases where no substitute vehicle is hired. Alexander reinforced the fact that loss‑of‑use damages are only recoverable where the damaged item is the owner’s main vehicle and its unavailability causes actual inconvenience. Given the minimal mileage, this Ferrari could not credibly be described as the claimant’s primary mode of transport, and in his final witness statement it became apparent that there were a number of other vehicles that the Claimant had access to.
Having been allocated to the Multi Track the matter was listed for a CCMC, and in advance of that hearing, having engaged Steven Turner of Kings Chambers, we applied for strike‑out or, alternatively, summary judgment in respect of either the entire claim or parts of it based on the what we said were the inconsistent and unsustainable pleadings.
At the application hearing, which was held at the same time as the CCMC the judge declined to strike out the entire claim or award summary judgment to the Defendant. He acknowledged that the pleadings were “coherent, even if alarming” and described elements of the case as “startlingly unrealistic.”
The court did, however, take decisive action on the storage claim. As there was no repair, no lien had arisen, compelling the judge to dismiss this aspect outright. This was achieved without delving into the issues around ownership of the repair company. That alone was a saving of circa £150,000!
The loss‑of‑use claim survived in principle, but only in a significantly reduced form. The judge accepted that there may have been a short period in which the claimant could have suffered actionable loss, yet rejected the sweeping assertion that he had been without use of the Ferrari since the accident, commenting that MOT's simply aren’t given to unroadworthy vehicles. The judge dismissed the loss‑of‑use claim as presented, though allowing scope for a more modest general damages claim which the Judge described as a claim in the "low thousands", meaning a saving of approximately £825,000.
After we argued that the case, had a value much lower, we successfully secured re‑allocation to the Intermediate Track (the Judge having made the comment that the claim was looking very dodgy and that consideration could be given to allocation to the Fast Track).
Progress of the Claim
Having been referred back to a District Judge for directions, the matter was assigned to Complexity Band 3 and directions were given.
The Ferrari owning Claimant dropped his assertion of impecuniosity – thereby removing any ability to assert that he couldn’t have repaired the car 6 years earlier.
The Claimant swapped his 2 engineers for another – but there was still no agreement between him and the Defendant's engineer Mark Brown.
When the Claimant's updated schedule of loss arrived, the claim had reduced from up to £1.5 million, to £62,755 for repairs, £0 for recovery and storage, £0 for diminution (on the basis that the vehicle had gone up in value as a result of the level of repairs that the Claimant was seeking) and a claim for Loss of Use which was said to be "to be assessed", but for which the daily rate had reduced from £327.86 per day to £50 per day, so a total claim unlikely to exceed £70,000.
Outcome
With some claims still technically live, the defendant faced the strategic risk of ongoing litigation, and a 2 day trial. An all‑inclusive settlement offer of £60,000 to include costs was made and subsequently accepted by the claimant. Given that the original claim sought up to £1.5 million plus costs, the resolution represented a saving in excess of £1 million plus costs for the defendant.
Gavin Perry, Head of Credit Hire at DWF said as follows:
"When Covéa received this litigation there was clearly concern given the potential value. Within a short period of time, by use of public records and surveillance we were able to determine a more realistic likely outcome. Utilising Mark Brown for a physical inspection (once the Claimant had conceded that the vehicle hadn't been repaired), and working with Covéa and Steven Turner to devise a strategy in advance of the CCMC meant that we secured a strike out of most of the claim at the earliest point, and a restriction of costs through allocation to the Intermediate Track.
A combination of the above led the Claimant's solicitors, despite the best efforts of the Claimant, to accede to the fact that their clients aspirations for his claim were not going to be realised. In some ways it would have been interesting to have a final Court hearing - even the Judge at the CCMC expressed the view that he would "like to meet this man", but the settlement achieved removed risk and potential costs whilst still achieving an amazing saving on the pleaded claim."
Ben Summerscales, Claims Fraud Manager at Covéa insurance said:
"Although the claimant experienced a genuine loss and we were prepared to compensate it, the actual value was much lower than the sum claimed. We also found that the vehicle had not as stated been off the road since the accident
Working closely with DWF and Mark Brown, we were able to identify and evidence weaknesses in the claimant’s case at an early stage. DWF and Steven Turner then compiled the supporting evidence into a strong and successful application to strike out most of the claim at an early stage of proceedings. By partnering with experts in their respective fields, and taking a proactive approach, the claim was significantly reduced, limiting our exposure to damages and costs and ensuring the claimant received only the compensation to which they were entitled."
