Rana v Tears of Sutton Bridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Mckenna |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2597 (QB) |
| Date | 24 July 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/15/0485 |
[2015] EWHC 2597 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Mckenna
Case No: TLQ/15/0485
Mr Nicholas Goodfellow (instructed by Barker Gillette LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms Janine Wolstenholme (instructed by Keoghs) appeared at trial on behalf of the Defendant Mr George Woods
Dates of hearing 22 nd July 2015 and 24 th July 2015
(As Approved)
Introduction
In this action, Mr Tejinder Rana (trading as Limos 4 U) seeks damages against the defendants, Tears of Sutton Bridge Limited, for breach of duty as a bailee said to arise out of the destruction by arson of a 16 capacity Hummer H2 motor vehicle, registration number B19 MA ("the vehicle") whilst in the defendants' possession in the early morning of 13 July 2013. The defendants, for their part, deny breach of duty and assert that reasonable precautions were taken in all the circumstances. Liability, causation and quantum are all in dispute.
Background
The factual matrix to this dispute is not in issue. Thus on the evening of 12 July 2013, the vehicle, whilst being driven by Mr Stephen Church, was the subject of a roadside spot check by VOSA and Lincolnshire Police. As a result of various concerns relating to the vehicle, it was seized by the police pursuant to section 152 of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005; and pursuant to an agreement between the police and the defendants, the vehicle was recovered from the scene by the defendants and placed into storage at its premises in Gosburton Road, Surfleet, Spalding, PE11 4AB arriving at those premises at about 21.55 hours.
Pursuant to the seizure notice of 12 July 2013, the owner/registered keeper had 14 days from the date of issue of the notice to release the vehicle by ensuring production of a valid certificate of insurance and driving licence to the police and payment of removal and storage charges, in default of which the vehicle would have been scrapped or sold. In addition to the seizure notice, a prohibition notice was issued for a failure to use a tachograph chart or a driver card and a Roadworthiness Prohibition Notice was also issued in respect of a number of noted defects, the exact nature of which is not particularly material for the purposes of this judgment, save to say that the Roadworthiness Prohibition Notice came into force at 8.00 pm on 12 July 2013 and was to stay in force until removed by prior appointment by inspection of a COIF document (Certificate of initial Fitness).
On or about the early morning of 13 July 2013, an unknown intruder entered the defendants' premises and set fire to the vehicle. That intruder was captured on the defendants' CCTV.
The Evidence
In terms of evidence, on behalf of the defendants, the court has heard from Robert Tear, the managing director of the defendant company; Gary Salter, a vehicle examiner and employee of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency; and acting Sergeant Temple of Lincolnshire Police; and in addition, the court has read a statement from Jacqueline Jenkinson of G4S (that statement being the subject of a Civil Evidence Act notice). In addition, the court has heard from Mr Rana, the claimant himself.
In terms of expert evidence, the court has had the benefit of reading two reports dated respectively 20 May and 10 July 2015 from a jointly instructed vehicle valuer, Mr Cosway, who provided a range of values in respect of the vehicle from £41,000 to £47,000 with a midpoint of £44,300 and a jointly instructed expert accountancy report from Mr Pillar dealing with the claimant's loss of profits claim. In addition, there were a number of answers to various questions put by the parties.
It is clear from the evidence of Mr Tear (which I accept) that the vehicle was stored in a locked compound which was surrounded by palisade steel fencing 6 feet high and secured by sliding bars with heavy duty padlocks on all three gates to the premises and that CCTV equipment was installed and there were floodlights in the vicinity of where the vehicle was actually stored. The premises themselves were set back from the road, although it is fair to say that the vehicle would still have been visible from the road. The approximate location of the vehicle on the night in question can be seen in the site plan exhibited to the witness statement of Mr Tear at page 78. It was parked adjacent to what is described as the main building on the site plan. There are three distinct areas within the defendants' premises where the vehicle could have been stored: (1) the enclosed compound at the rear of the premises; that is to say furthest from the road and referred to as "the compound" on the site plan; (2) the main building which was fitted with an alarm which would have sounded if there had been unauthorised entry; and (3) the remaining outside fenced area between the entrance to the premises and the compound to the rear where the vehicle was in fact located and which I will refer to as ("the yard").
During the course of his cross-examination, Mr Tear explained that the number of vehicles which might be recovered and have to be stored overnight would vary from day-to-day, or I suppose I should say night to night; some nights there would be none, on others there could be three, four or even five. Generally speaking, recovered vehicles would be parked overnight in the yard and the next morning they would be checked in, logged, images taken, chassis numbers identified and the like. In some cases, but not in respect of the vehicle, the police themselves would give specific instructions as to where on the defendants' premises a particular vehicle was to be stored. Generally speaking, if it was of interest in terms of possible involvement in criminal activity where the preservation of evidence was important, in which case it was likely that the police would require it to be stored within the main building, otherwise and generally speaking, if the vehicle was damaged it would likely be stored in the compound, but otherwise, vehicles would be stored in the yard (as I have recorded was the case with the vehicle) along with a significant number of other vehicles, in the order of 15 to 20 on the night of the 12 th /13 July 2013. It was also Mr Tear's evidence that the defendants stored a wide ranges of vehicles, both private and commercial, of varying value at the premises. Most would be worth less than the vehicle, but some, including other limousines as well as commercial vehicles and their loads, and indeed the defendants' own recovery vehicle, would have a value substantially in excess of the value of the vehicle and up to and including £150,000 or thereabouts.
Mr Tear explained that the defendants had no previous history of theft or criminal damage to any vehicle stored at the premises, whether in the yard or otherwise. He also explained that the police carried out periodic inspections of the premises to ensure that the defendants were complying with their requirements as to storage of vehicles at the police's request. Those requirements included that the premises were adequately secured with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial