Mr Paul Knapfield v C.A.R.S Holdings Ltd (Company No. 05481676)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Charles Hollander |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1437 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2020-000189 |
[2022] EWHC 1437 (Comm)
Charles Hollander QC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case No: CL-2020-000189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Jessica Sutherland and Julia Gibbon (instructed by KLS Law) for the Claimant
Peter MacDonald Eggers QC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 3–5, 9–10 May 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Charles Hollander QC
This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Monday 13 June 2022 at 10:00am.
Charles Hollander QC:
A. Introduction
By this claim Mr Paul Knapfield claims damages for the damage and diminution in value of two valuable cars damaged whilst in the possession of the Defendants in July 2019.
The central issue between the parties is whether Mr Knapfield's damages are limited by the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 which incorporates the CMR Convention (“CMR”). If so, it is common ground that CARS' liability is limited to SDR 23,490.60, which amounts to about $20,000. A variety of different routes are put forward by the Claimant as to why CMR should not apply and they will need to be considered individually.
There was very little agreement between the parties, although a certain amount was agreed between the experts. It follows that over the five day trial (with both sides keeping to time estimates with remarkable accuracy) there were not only many witnesses who gave oral evidence in relation to what may be described as issues of liability but also evidence on a large number of issues as to quantum even on occasion where the sums in dispute were very small.
B. The vehicles
The Mercedes Benz CLK GTR 97 Chassis 000004 (“the CLK 97”) is a sports car produced by Mercedes Benz and AMG (then motorsports partner of Mercedes Benz). It was built in 1997 for the purposes of competing in the new FIA GT Championship of the same year. The CLK 97 took some of the design elements from the Mercedes Benz CLK but underneath had all the features and cutting edge technology of a racing car. The CLK won the inaugural 1997 FIA GT Championship. The FIA subsequently created different GT categories and changed the manufacturing regulations. The FIA Championship ended in 2009. Only five Mercedes Benz CLK GTR chassis had any significant race history but as the winner of the inaugural championship makes the CLK 97 the best and most coveted of all the CLK GTR chassis and has been described as a landmark car in GT motorsport history. The experts agree its current value is between 9 and 9.5 million euro, so I will take the figure as €9.25m.
The Talbot-Lago T26 GS Franay Cabriolet, Chassis 110121 (“the Talbot”) was built in 1948, one of approximately 32 hand-built T26 G5s. All chassis parts were proprietary, made in house by Automobiles Talbot and coachbuilt by hand to the customer's order from a coachbuilder. Chassis 110121 was fitted with a one-off cabriolet body by the Parisian coachbuilder Carrosserie Franay. It is said that such cars are treated by their owners and prospective purchasers as works of art.
Mr Knapfield collects classic cars. He purchased the CLK 97 directly from Mercedes Museum in Stuttgart in 2015 for €1.8m. He purchased the Talbot at an auction in 2017 for €1.146m.
C. Ownership of the Vehicles
There is no dispute that Mr Knapfield is the owner of the CLK 97.
In cross-examination Mr Knapfield was asked about the ownership of the Talbot and said he understood it was owned by Dane Resources, a family trust of which Mr Knapfield is the sole beneficiary. In closing submissions, the Defendants submitted that in consequence, whilst Mr Knapfield is entitled to claim for the cost of repairs to the extent that he has expended money on the Talbot, he cannot claim for diminution in value on a car he does not own. The Defendants say they had put ownership in issue on the pleadings and the position had never been satisfactorily resolved.
This plainly took the Claimant somewhat by surprise and I was asked to admit fresh evidence to show that the Talbot was in fact owned by Mr Knapfield and that his answer given in cross-examination was a simple error. It seemed to me that if Mr Knapfield had indeed made an error, it would be very unsatisfactory to reject an important part of his claim on such a basis, and indicated that I was willing in principle to consider admitting further evidence on the point after the end of the oral hearing subject to the Defendants reserving their position and having an opportunity to object.
In the event, I was provided with a further witness statement from Mr Knapfield confirming that he was indeed the owner of the Talbot and his evidence in relation to Dane Resources (which had title to other vehicles in his possession) was erroneous. Whilst the Defendants in post-hearing correspondence submitted that the position remained unsatisfactory and insufficient documentary material had been disclosed to make the position clear, they did not object to the admission of Mr Knapfield's further witness statement. Having considered the additional material and the further statement I am satisfied that Mr Knapfield is the owner of the Talbot as well as the CLK 97.
D. Brief factual summary
In June 2019, the Second Defendant CARS was engaged through Peter Auto, a French events management company, to transport the CLK 97 and the Talbot from the premises of Mr Knapfield, at Old Jordans, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire (“Old Jordans”), to the Chantilly Arts & Elegance Richard Mille Concours d'Etat (“Chantilly”), north of Paris.
Chantilly is a two-day event (Concours) at which a large number of classic cars are exhibited and compete for prizes awarded by judges. Chantilly is organised by Peter Auto.
On 27th June 2019, the Vehicles were collected by CARS' driver, Mr Anton Constantinou, at Old Jordans and transported to Chantilly. The Vehicles were loaded on to and carried by vehicle transporter registration no. HX15 OMV (“the Transporter”).
On 29th June 2019, the Transporter carrying the Vehicles as well as three Aston Martins and a Porsche arrived at Chantilly for the event. Two of the Aston Martins were carried for Mr Dylan Miles.
On 30th June 2019, after the conclusion of the event, the Vehicles were collected by Mr Constantinou at Chantilly and loaded on to the Transporter, but the Transporter did not depart from Chantilly until 3rd July 2019. Mr Miles's Aston Martins were also on board.
During the journey back, after arriving in England, Mr Constantinou redelivered the Aston Martins to Mr Miles' place near Lewes, East Sussex during the late afternoon. Mr Constantinou said at this stage no damage had occurred in relation to the CLK 97 or the Talbot. That evening, Mr Constantinou stopped at Cobham Services on the M25 for the purposes of refuelling and again inspected the Vehicles and observed that the Talbot — which had been stowed forward of the CLK 97 — had slipped backwards into the CLK 97.
On 4th July 2019, Mr Constantinou delivered the Vehicles to Old Jordans.
There was no observed damage to the Transporter.
By reason of the damage, Mr Knapfield claims damages from the Defendants as owner of the Vehicles.
CARS — the Second Defendant — accepts that it is legally liable for the damage sustained to the Vehicles by reason of the front wheel straps attached to the Talbot becoming free during the return journey. The other Defendants do not accept liability, because they had no involvement with the carriage. There was no argument as to the liability of the other Defendants and I proceed on the basis that liability lies merely with the Second Defendant.
E. The witnesses
The factual witnesses who gave evidence before me were as follows:
a. Paul Knapfield, owner of the Vehicles
b. Geoffroy Peter, Managing Director of Peter Classic Racing Cars
c. Chris Jenkins, Estate Manager of Jordans Village Ltd
d. Dylan Miles, responsible for two of the Aston Martins transported at the same time
e. Andrew Charters who organised the repairs for Mr Knapfield
f. Patrick Peter, Managing Director of Peter Auto
g. Chris Dale, CARS' Group transport manager
h. Darren DuRose, employed by CARS at the time of the damage
i. Keith Winter, employed by CARS
j. Anton Constantinou, the driver employed by CARS
Mr Constantinou was very nervous giving evidence, and his evidence was in a number of respects at odds with that of other witnesses. Most strikingly, he claimed to have spoken to Mr Knapfield in detail when he collected the Vehicles from Old Jordans on 27 June, evidence which was contradicted both by Mr Knapfield and Mr Jenkins, each of whom made clear that Mr Knapfield was not there at the time. Indeed, it was because Mr Knapfield was not there that Mr Jenkins was asked to assist in arranging the loading of the Vehicles on the Transporter by Mr Knapfield as both Mr Knapfield and Mr Jenkins made clear. Mr Constantinou described in detail the conversation he said he had with Mr Knapfield on arrival at Old Jordans. Not only was this a conversation which plainly never occurred, it is very hard to see how Mr Constantinou could have confused it with any other conversation. I did not find Mr Constantinou's evidence reliable,...
To continue reading
Request your trial