Smyth (Thomas James) v Diamond (Lawerence); Phillips (Neville) v Ritchie (Elsie); Torrens (Henry James) v Tally (Majella); McCabe (Kathleen Teresa) v Moffett (Richard)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIQB 74 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 17 June 2010 |
| Year | 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 74 Ref:
McCL7889
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
17/06/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
________
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT JUDGES
FOR VARIOUS DIVISIONS
________
BETWEEN:
1. THOMAS JAMES SMYTH
Plaintiff/Appellant:
and
LAWRENCE DIAMOND
Defendant/Respondent:
________
2. NEVILLE PHILLIPS
Plaintiff/Appellant:
and
ELSIE RITCHIE
Defendant/Respondent:
________
3. HENRY JAMES TORRENS
Plaintiff/Appellant:
and
MAJELLA TALLY
Defendant/Respondent:
________
2
4. KATHLEEN TERESA McCABE
Plaintiff/Respondent:
and
RICHARD MOFFETT
Defendant/Appellant:
__________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] These are four conjoined appeals to the High Court from the District Judges
for various County Court Divisions in Northern Ireland. They were deliberately
grouped together for hearing on the basis that they possess certain common features.
Furthermore, it is the aspiration of the court that its judgment in this group of these
cases might encourage consensual resolution in some of the other members of this
ever expanding category.
[2] As these appeals demonstrate, there is still no sign of a truce in the continuing
battle between insurance companies and credit hire companies in this sphere of
litigation. The general backcloth to these appeals is understood by reference to the
following passage in Turley –v- Black and Another [2010] NIQB 1:
“[2] Cases belonging to this group typically have the following
features:
(a) The Plaintiff claims damages against the Defendant
tortfeasor arising out of a road traffic accident, in which the
Plaintiff's vehicle is damaged.
(b) An element of the Plaintiff's claim relates to the hire of
a substitute vehicle following the accident in question.
(c) There is a commercial supplier of vehicles, who provides
the vehicle in question to the Plaintiff during the relevant
period.
(d) The supply arrangement has a financing dimension,
involving a credit hire company, with whom the Plaintiff
contracts.
(e) There is usually a commercial relationship between the
vehicle supplier and the credit hire company.
(f) The Plaintiff normally obtains, pursuant to his contract
with the credit hire company, benefits over and above the
basic use and enjoyment of the substitute vehicle –to be
contrasted with a simple hire arrangement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Burrows (Nicola) v Alan Ross
...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 appropriate legal principles. So far as this appeal is concerned there are only a few points ......