- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Giles v Thompson
Factual and Procedural Background
Two motor accidents led separate motorists (“Respondents”) to hire replacement vehicles from commercial car-hire companies while their own cars were being repaired. Each hire agreement allowed the company to recover its charges only after damages were obtained from the other driver (“Appellants”) or their insurers. The Appellants contended that these agreements were unlawful because they amounted to modern instances of champerty.
County Court judges awarded damages that included the hire charges. The Court of Appeal affirmed all three County Court decisions (only two were pursued further). The Appellants petitioned the highest court, which heard the conjoined appeals and delivered the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the hire agreements were champertous and therefore unlawful, having regard to the modern law of maintenance and champerty.
- If unlawful, whether that unlawfulness barred recovery of the hire charges in tort actions brought by the Respondents.
- Whether, even if the agreements were lawful, the Respondents had suffered a recoverable loss given that they had not yet paid the hire charges.
- Issue peculiar to the second appeal: whether the Respondent had proved a sufficient need for a replacement car.
- Issue peculiar to the second appeal: whether interest on the hire-charge element of damages should be awarded.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The hire agreements constituted champerty because the companies intervened in litigation for a share of the proceeds, rendering the contracts unlawful and unenforceable.
- As unlawful contracts, they could not be relied upon to claim damages representing hire charges.
- Respondents suffered no loss because the substitute cars were, in effect, provided free until litigation ended.
- In the second appeal, the Respondent had not demonstrated any genuine need for a replacement vehicle.
- Any award of damages for hire charges should not attract interest.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The agreements were ordinary credit-hire contracts; the companies’ profit derived from hiring cars, not from the litigation, so no champerty arose.
- Each Respondent remained personally liable for the hire charges, creating a genuine loss recoverable from the tortfeasor.
- The schemes did not threaten the administration of justice or exploit motorists and therefore were not contrary to public policy.
- The second Respondent had demonstrated a reasonable need for a substitute vehicle, and interest should compensate delay in payment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| British Cash and Parcel Conveyors v. Lamson Store Service Company [1908] 1 KB 1006 | Definition of maintenance and champerty (“wanton and officious intermeddling”). | Quotation used to test whether the hire companies’ involvement was officious or harmful; court held it was not. |
| Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 | Modern test for champertous assignment of a bare cause of action. | Cited to show that earlier tests are context-specific; court declined to extend those strict rules to credit-hire schemes. |
| Martell v. Consett Iron Co. [1955] Ch 363 | Evolving nature of maintenance and champerty doctrines. | Relied on to justify adapting public-policy analysis to contemporary circumstances. |
| Harlow & Jones v. Panex (International) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 | Recovery where replacement goods are supplied free. | Mentioned while distinguishing situations in which a vehicle is lent entirely free of charge. |
| Donnelly v. Joyce [1974] QB 454 | Assessment of damages when third parties assist the victim. | Cited in the same comparative context as above; court reserved the wider question. |
| McAll v. Brooks [1984] RTR 99 | Damages for loss of use of a vehicle. | Part of comparative discussion on “free” replacement scenarios; not determinative here. |
| The Mathew [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323 | Measure of damages when substitute obtained. | Likewise referenced but left for future resolution. |
| H. Cousins & Co. v. D. & C. Carriers [1971] 2 QB 230 | Interest awards where a subrogated party is involved. | Discussed to distinguish insurers’ subrogation from hire-company situations; helped justify refusal of interest. |
| Harbutt’s “Plasticine” v. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. [1970] 1 QB 447 | Same line of authority on discretionary interest linked to subrogation. | Used in the same way as the Cousins case. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The leading opinion by Judge [Last Name] proceeded in two parts, examining each appeal separately.
Whether the Contracts Were Champertous
- The companies obtained no charge or assignment over any damages; therefore they had no direct share in “the spoils.”
- Each Respondent retained a “residual liability” for hire charges, payable once the tort action concluded; this demonstrated a real, not illusory, consideration.
- Control of litigation was either non-existent (first appeal) or limited and ethically manageable (second appeal). Any theoretical conflict could be addressed by professional duties and court supervision.
- The historic mischief of champerty—oppression of weaker litigants and corruption of justice—was absent. Modern courts are equipped to police exaggeration or abuse through costs and procedural tools.
- Accordingly, the agreements did not involve “wanton and officious intermeddling” and were lawful.
Recoverable Loss
- Because the Respondents assumed personal liability for the charges (albeit on credit), they incurred an actual pecuniary loss.
- The fact that payment was deferred until damages were received did not negate liability or loss.
Need for a Replacement Vehicle (Second Appeal)
- Need is not self-proving but easily inferred from everyday use of a private car.
- Defendants bear the onus to displace that inference; the County Court judge was entitled to find need proved on the evidence.
Interest on Hire Charges (Second Appeal)
- Interest is discretionary. Here, the Respondent was never out of pocket because liability was unenforceable until damages were recovered.
- No contractual provision obliged the Respondent to pay interest to the hire company; awarding interest would create an unjustified windfall.
- The Court therefore disallowed the interest component.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeals were dismissed save that, in the second appeal, the award of interest on hire charges was set aside. The Appellants were ordered to pay the Respondents’ costs of the appeals.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that modern credit-hire agreements, structured as genuine hire on deferred payment, do not offend the residual doctrine of champerty. Motorists may therefore recover hire charges as damages, subject to ordinary proof of need and reasonableness, while interest will depend on the actual financial burden borne. The decision offers guidance but does not create a new categorical rule; future cases will still turn on contract wording and factual context.
Alert