I appear in substantial credit hire litigation and related appeals in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The cases below are selected because they illustrate the kinds of problems on which I am instructed: substantial hire claims, appellate questions, allegations of fraud or dishonesty, and the costs exposure of credit hire organisations.
Credit hire litigation | Appeals | QOCS and non-party costs | Hailsham Chambers
Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB)
My role: counsel for the respondent, instructed by Express Solicitors.
The appeal concerned a 197-day credit hire period, storage charges, mitigation and the effect of a debarring order relating to impecuniosity. The High Court distinguished between impecuniosity for the purpose of rate and lack of funds relied upon to explain the duration of hire.
The appeal was dismissed and the Recorder’s findings were upheld.
Gentry v Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141
My role: counsel for the appellant.
The underlying road traffic claim included a substantial award, principally for credit hire charges. The insurer later sought to set aside the default judgment and damages order, alleging fraud and collusion.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the insurer’s applications to set aside the judgments. The case is an important application of the Mitchell/Denton approach to delay and relief from sanctions where fraud is alleged.
Tescher v Direct Accident Management Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 733
My role: junior counsel with Benjamin Williams KC for Direct Accident Management Ltd.
The conjoined appeals concerned when a credit hire company may be made liable for a defendant’s costs after the underlying claimant has QOCS protection.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and made non-party costs orders against both credit hire companies. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was subsequently refused. The judgment now provides important guidance for CHOs and insurers on non-party costs exposure.
Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18
My role: counsel for the respondent, instructed by Winn Solicitors.
The appeal concerned the setting aside of a notice of discontinuance, the meaning of conduct “likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings”, and the circumstances in which QOCS protection may be lost.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and upheld the decision that the notice of discontinuance should not be set aside.
University Hospitals of Derby & Burton NHS Foundation Trust v Harrison [2022] EWCA Civ 1660; [2023] 4 WLR 8
My role: counsel for the respondent.
The appeal concerned whether an order following late acceptance of a Part 36 offer was an “order for damages and interest” for the purposes of CPR 44.14, and therefore whether the defendant could enforce or set off its costs against the damages.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent’s position.
Why these cases matter to credit hire solicitors
Substantive credit hire
Houston and Gentry show the kind of substantial credit hire dispute in which appellate intervention may be sought: period, impecuniosity, mitigation, fraud allegations and procedural failure.
Costs and procedural risk
Tescher, McDonald and Harrison concern the procedural and costs framework around litigation: non-party costs, QOCS, discontinuance and Part 36. Those questions frequently matter to the commercial value of credit hire litigation even when they are not part of the damages claim itself.
Have a difficult credit hire case or appeal?
If a judgment raises a possible appeal, the claim is substantial, or the case involves unusual costs or procedural risk, please contact my clerks at Hailsham Chambers.