Masrour v Danzey

[2013] NSWLC 9

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Masrour v Danzey [2013] NSWLC 9
Hearing dates:	9/11/2012, 25-26/02/2013
Decision date:	12 April 2013
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Magistrate Schurr
Decision:	Verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of $7,825.14
Catchwords:	CIVIL - motor vehicle accident - hire of replacement vehicle - damages and non-compensable benefits
Cases Cited:	Admiralty Commissioners v SS Chekiang [1926] AC 637 Anthanasopolous v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266 Bent v Highways and Utilities Construction and Allianz Insurance [2011] EWCA Civ 1384 (24 November 2011) Burdis v Livsey [2003] QB 36 Chong v Berry [2007] NSWLC 33 Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 Fang v Koumekelis (unreported, Local Court, 18/07/2012) Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9 Lord Citrine, Owners of the v Owners of the Hebridean Coast ("The Hebridean Coast") [1961] AC 545 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Owners of the SS Marpessa "The Marpessa" [1907] AC 241 "The Mediana", Owners of the Steamship v Owners, Master & Crew of the Lightship "Comet" [1900] AC 113 The Owners of No 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger v The Owners SS "Greta Holme" [1897] AC 596 Solar v Elkin [2011] NSWLC 34 Tyko Australia Pty Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWCA 333
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Iraj MASROUR (Plaintiff) Robyn DANZEY (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr Griscti (for the Plaintiff) Mr Habib SC and Mr Oliver (for the Defendant) Johnathan D'Arcy & Co (for the Plaintiff) MCK Lawyers (for the Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/128560

Judgment

Legal Background

1. This case concerns companies that offer hire cars on credit for drivers whose cars have been damaged in an accident caused by the other driver. The companies operate in the UK and Australia. Sometimes their advertisements may be seen on the back of buses in Sydney.¹ In return for hiring cars without requiring upfront payment, that is, on credit, the companies take over the right of the driver to recoup the cost from the insurers of the at-fault driver. The daily hire charges of a credit car hire company can be twice that of mainstream car hire companies.²

1. Insurance companies have opposed the claims of the credit car hire companies in the courts, in part because of the higher payouts in damages incurred than if the plaintiff had used a mainstream car hire company. Insurers lost the first legal challenge, in which they alleged the agreements were champertous³. The insurers won the next legal challenge, when they successfully argued that the drivers' agreements with the credit car hire providers were in breach of the UK Consumer Credit Act 1974, however this was a breach readily corrected by redrafting of the contracts.⁴ English courts have now established a method of assessing damages at a rate lower than the rate charged by the credit hire car companies when non-compensable benefits are received by the driver.⁵ The principles in Dimon v Lovell - that where there are non-compensable benefits…