Agheampong v Allied Manufacturing (London) Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23rd March 2006, the Plaintiff's motor car was parked unattended on a public road in The City when it was struck by a vehicle driven by an employee of the Defendant, causing extensive damage. The Defendant admitted liability for the accident, and the present judgment concerns damages, specifically focusing on the claim for loss of use of the vehicle under a credit hire agreement. The Plaintiff claimed damages including the pre-accident value of the vehicle, recovery and storage charges, miscellaneous expenses, and most significantly, £34,076.68 for the hire of a substitute vehicle for 341 days following the accident.

The Defendant contested the credit hire claim on two grounds: first, that the Plaintiff had been driving without the compulsory insurance required by the Road Traffic Act for a period preceding and including the accident, thereby invoking the public policy defence of ex turpi causa; second, that the credit hire claim was unreasonable and not compensable. The hearing took place in June 2008, and the court reserved judgment on the ex turpi causa point, deferring the credit hire issue for further evidence and submissions.

Key undisputed facts include the Plaintiff’s ownership and registration of the vehicle, the cancellation of his insurance in December 2004 due to non-payment of premium, and the passing of an MOT test in April 2005. The Plaintiff was convicted in January 2007 for using the vehicle without insurance on the date of the accident.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for loss of use of his vehicle during the period following the accident is barred by the public policy maxim of ex turpi causa non oritur actio due to his unlawful act of driving without compulsory insurance.
2. Whether the Plaintiff would have continued to drive the vehicle uninsured for the period in question, thereby rendering the loss of use claim unlawful and non-compensable.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff drove the vehicle without compulsory insurance from December 2004 until the accident in March 2006.
• The Plaintiff intended to continue driving uninsured for the 341-day period for which he claims damages for loss of use.
• The Plaintiff’s claim for loss of use is based on an unlawful act and is therefore barred by the ex turpi causa principle.
• The credit hire claim is excessive and unreasonable given the vehicle’s low salvage value.
• The Plaintiff’s explanations regarding insurance and the purported sale of the vehicle were implausible and indicative of dishonesty.
• Evidence from the Motor Insurers’ Database (MID) showed no record of insurance for the Plaintiff’s vehicle on multiple spot dates spanning the relevant period.
• The Plaintiff likely obtained the road tax disc fraudulently by producing an invalid insurance certificate.
• Driving uninsured is a criminal offence with serious public policy implications, justifying denial of damages for loss of use.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserted he had insurance for some period after December 2004, although he could not produce documentary evidence due to a claimed computer failure.
• The renewal of the road tax disc in August 2005 was prima facie evidence of insurance at that time.
• The MID evidence was incomplete, hearsay upon hearsay, and lacked proper foundation or certification.
• The Plaintiff was not an inveterate uninsured driver; he had taken steps to comply with legal requirements such as MOT and road tax.
• The loss of use claim relates to a distinct head of damage not causally connected to the Plaintiff’s unlawful conduct.
• The Plaintiff’s financial difficulties explained the lack of insurance, and the offence was treated leniently by the Magistrates’ Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed factual and legal analysis focusing on the ex turpi causa doctrine as refined in Hewison v Meridian Shipping. The central factual inquiry was whether the Plaintiff would have continued to drive the vehicle without compulsory insurance during the 341-day period for which he claimed loss of use damages.

The court accepted the Defendant’s burden to prove, on the balance of probabilities but with heightened caution due to the criminal nature of the conduct, that the Plaintiff’s unlawful driving would have continued. The evidence included the Plaintiff’s failure to produce any credible insurance documentation after December 2004, the MID reports showing no insurance on multiple critical dates, the implausibility of the Plaintiff’s explanations regarding the purported sale of the vehicle and retention of the tax disc, and the Plaintiff’s evasive testimony.

The court found the Plaintiff’s account to be deliberately misleading and rejected his claim of insurance post-December 2004. The Plaintiff’s explanations for the absence of insurance documentation were deemed improbable. The court also noted the Plaintiff’s financial difficulties but found these insufficient to negate the evidence of intentional unlawful conduct.

Legally, the court applied the principle that damages cannot be recovered for loss arising from unlawful acts, specifically loss of use tied to future illegal conduct. The court distinguished between heads of damage causally connected to illegality and those that are not, allowing recovery for the latter. The court found that loss of use damages in this case were inextricably linked to the unlawful act of uninsured driving and thus barred by public policy.

The court acknowledged procedural deficiencies in the Defendant’s evidence relating to the MID but exercised discretion to admit the hearsay evidence, attributing it appropriate weight given the Plaintiff’s failure to produce contrary evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for loss of use of the vehicle based on the application of the ex turpi causa principle. The Plaintiff was permitted to recover other heads of damage, such as the capital value of the vehicle and out-of-pocket expenses, which were not causally connected to the unlawful conduct.

This decision underscores the application of public policy to bar recovery of damages premised on unlawful future conduct by the claimant, particularly where that conduct constitutes a criminal offence. The ruling does not establish new precedent but faithfully applies the refined doctrine as set out in Hewison v Meridian Shipping, emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the defence and the necessity of careful evidential assessment in such cases.