Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:55 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43957
Location: 1066 Country
Interesting case re the correct approach when assessing financial loss following a non fault accident for a self-employed taxi/PH driver.

Hussain v EUI Ltd

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43957
Location: 1066 Country
There is a bit in the judgement that has given me the right royal hump, and I expect it also gave the Judge similar. Although he didn't express it in those words.

Right at the end of his judgement, just after he dismissed the appeal, he said this.

23. While no point was taken on this appeal as to the proper assessment of Mr Hussain's loss of profit, I do question whether the calculation was right. Where the claim is limited to the lost profit, the true loss is not simply the pro rata loss of profit identified from a claimant's accounts but also the fixed overheads incurred during the period of loss that could not be avoided during the cessation in trade. To give a simple example:
23.1 A professional driver might receive gross income of £2,000 per month from which he has to pay fixed overheads (including interest payable on the loan taken to purchase his car, insurance and road tax) of £250 and variable costs (principally fuel, servicing and tyres) of £500.
23.2 His accounts would show a net profit of £1,250 per month, but the claimant's true loss upon his car being off the road for a full month is £1,500 (being his pro rata loss of net profit plus the fixed overheads that he had to pay even though he was not working).


24. Here, it appears that Mr Hussain was simply awarded his pro rata loss of profit. In making that observation, I should make plain that I am not criticising Judge Wall. Counsel at trial simply did not address on these very modest numbers the question of fixed overheads and the judge had no material on which to adjust her calculation of loss.

What the judge is correctly saying is that no-one at the original hearing, nor anyone at the High Court Appeal, worked out that any financial loss isn't merely our profit. Our financial losses also include our overheads. [-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:17 pm
Posts: 2354
Always a point to bear in mind whenever you're involved in an accident; while you're off the road you're not covering your overheads. They get covered either as a deduction from your profit or made up out of your pocket.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 3980
Location: Lincoln
The absurdity of this situation is that the replacement vehicle cost £366 A DAY for 18 days.

It would have been cheaper to send the bloke and his family to Majorca on an all expenses holiday for the duration of the repair and give him £100 a day loss of earnings. Madness, madness they call it madness.

_________________
Father of the rank.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group