HIRE IN A MIRE
What’s this—claimant credit hire company and defendant tortfeaser’s insurers at war? Amazingly so, but in Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872, [2014] All ER (D) 194 (Jun), the tanks were not in position over impecuniosity, hire period, cancellation rights, VAT, the engineer’s fee or the residual contents of the kitchen sink which these creative litigants inhabit, but a cute pleading issue.
The claim had the potential for an outing on the fast-track as it fell within the plus £5,000 up to £10,000 band—prior to the small claims limit being raised—though the defendant made various admissions in the defence before going on to aver in somewhat contradictory terms and to earn the description of incoherent by the claimant’s counsel before the Court of Appeal. However, the defendant’s allocation (now directions) questionnaire stated that the amount in dispute was circa £4,000 and, that being so, the claim fell within the remit of the small claims track. In the event, a district judge interpreted the defence as including admissions and entered judgment
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
