In Darren Bent v (1) Highways and Utilities Construction Ltd; (2) Allianz Insurance Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 292, the Court of Appeal was asked to order a retrial of the first instance decision of Mr Justice Yelton sitting in Cambridge County Court.

The case concerned the hire in February 2007, by Darren Bent (the Sunderland and England striker), of an Aston Martin DB9, worth approximately £105,000, following an accident caused by an Allianz policyholder which resulted in damage to Mr Bent’s sports car.

The Aston Martin was hired from a credit hire company, Accident Exchange Ltd, for 94 days at a total hire cost of £63,406.90 (Mr Bent’s damaged car cost £72,000). The defendants argued that:

  • the Aston Martin was a more expensive car and therefore likely to be more costly to hire than Mr Bent’s own car; and
  • pursuant to Mr Bent’s duty to mitigate, he ought to have hired from the “spot” market which would have been cheaper by someone paying immediately rather than on credit.

Authorities state that in the case of ‘pecunious’ claimants, damages to be awarded are normally assessed at the spot hire rates – the rate at which a broadly similar car could be had on the market.

Yelton J however did not assess the spot hire rate for a broadly similar car for a number of reasons. Firstly, he stated that in these circumstances, the court was dealing with a very specialised market (the luxury sports car market); and secondly, that the defendants had not provided proper evidence as to what the spot rate was at the material time (the judge did however have spot rates for 2008). In the absence of such evidence Yelton J found in favour of Mr Bent.

Lord Justice Jacob delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. He stated that at the heart of Yelton J’s reasoning was “that evidence of the position at a somewhat later date than that of the hire is irrelevant.”  He rejected that assumption stating that when assessing valuation evidence, it was often the case that the evidence would be of the same or similar things at different dates however appropriate adjustments should be made. Further, “working with comparables and making adjustments is the daily diet of judges concerned with valuation in all sorts of fields” and therefore evidence concerning the spot rate a year later from the time of the accident would be relevant.