McAteer (William) v Kirkpatrick (Stuart)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NIQB 52 |
| Date | 17 June 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NIQB 52 Ref:
McCL8208
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
17/06/11
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
________
ONAPPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
FOR THE DIVISION OF BELFAST
________
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM McATEER
Plaintiff/Appellant:
and
STUART KIRKPATRICK
Defendant/Respondent:
__________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The battle between insurance companies and credit hire organisations rages
on. The High Court listed four “credit hire” appeals for hearing on 10th June 2011.
Only one of these proved capable of settlement, with the notable assistance of a
lodgement. In two of the other three contested cases, the amount in dispute between
the parties was less than £300.
[2] The over-riding objective governing litigation in the High Court – enshrined
in Order 1, Rule 1A – requires the court (inter alia) to deal with each case in a manner
2
proportionate to the amount of money involved, the importance of the case, the
complexity of the issues and the financial position of each party. Moreover, the
court is enjoined to allocate to every case “an appropriate share of the court’s resources,
while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases”. The over-riding
objective is about to celebrate its tenth anniversary, having been introduced on 5th
September 2001 (by SR 2001 No. 254). It co-exists with its County Court counterpart,
enshrined in Order 58 of the County Court Rules and introduced with effect from 4th
November 2002 (by SR 2002 No. 255).
[3] The mechanism of arbitration – popularly known as “small claims” – was
introduced by Article 30(3) of the County Courts (NI) Order 1980 (“the 1980 Order”)
which, in its original incarnation, conferred jurisdiction on the Small Claims Court in
cases where the amount claimed or the value of specific chattels claimed did not
exceed £200. With the passage of time there have been progressive increases, with
the result that the present jurisdictional limit is £3,000, effective from 2nd May 2011
(by SR 2011/69). By virtue of Article 30(3), the arbitration of claims where the
amount in dispute is less than £3,000 is obligatory “save as otherwise provided by
County Court Rules”.
[4] Ever since the operative date of Article 30(3) there has been a category of
excluded claims. From the outset, claims for damages for personal injuries and
claims for damages “in respect of a road traffic accident” have been excluded from the
jurisdiction of the Smalls Claims Court. As a result, all cases belonging to these two
excluded categories are heard either by the District Judge (with a jurisdictional limit
of £5,000) or a County Court Judge (with a current jurisdictional ceiling of £15,000).
These exclusionary provisions have important consequences for appeal rights. By
virtue of Articles 30 and 60 of the 1980 Order:
(a) In a small claim, an appeal lies to a County Court Judge on a question
of law.
(b) Where the aforementioned appeal route is not pursued, there is the
possibility of an appeal by case stated on a question of law to the Court
of Appeal.
(c) In contrast, in all cases determined by a District Judge or County Court
Judge, not being small claims, there is an automatic right of appeal to
the High Court. In such cases, the decision of the High Court is final
unless a case is stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a point
of law, in which case the decision of the Court of Appeal is final: see
Article 60(3) and Article 62 of the 1980 Order.
[5] The net effect of the statutory arrangements is that there is an automatic right
of appeal to the High Court in every credit hire case, irrespective of the amount
involved, the importance of the case or the complexity of the issues. The justification
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Burrows (Nicola) v Alan Ross
...in a series of cases including Matchett v Hamilton [2011] NIQB 131, Mahood v McDonnell and Another [2011] NIQB 57, Mateer v Kirkpatrick [2011] NIQB 52, Stokes v McAuley [2010] NIQB 131 and Smyth v Diamond and conjoined cases [2010] NIQB 74. I adopt and incorporate his analysis of the approp......
-
Clarke (Colin) and Lyndsay McCullough
...analysed, is the loss of use of his vehicle - or acted unreasonably in purported mitigation thereof. “ [20] In McAteer – v – Kirkpatrick [2011] NIQB 52, I formulated the series of governing principles in the following way: (i) The principle of restitutio in integrum: this being a claim in t......
-
Karen McKibbin and UK Insurance Limited
...and helpful summary in previous case-law in this jurisdiction: see, for instance, the judgment of McCloskey J in McAteer v Kirkpatrick [2011] NIQB 52, at paragraph [12]. [52] It is a general principle that a plaintiff should take reasonable steps to limit their loss following an accident or......
-
Chivers v O'Loughlin
...Matchett v Heather Hamilton [2011] NIQB 132, Stokes v McAuley [2010] NIQB 131, Bates v Keegan [2012] NIQB 103 ,McAteer v Kirkpatrick 5 [2011] NIQB 52 and Gilheany v McGovern [2009] NIQB 46. In addition my attention was drawn to a more recent authority in the Court of Appeal in England of Co......
Request a trial to view additional results