Knight Rider

When I was a boy, Saturday evening had a rhythm of its own. The ritual was simple. First, dinner: one poached egg, gently set upon a golden platform of cheese on toast. Then, a moment of television glory, an American television series, of which a particularly memorable one was — Knight Rider.

There it was. KITT, the glossy black Pontiac Trans Am with a sweeping red light on its bumper and a voice smooth as velvet. A car that drove itself, talked back, ran faster than reason allowed, and — let’s be honest — almost certainly had no MOT. No insurance. Probably no tax disc. Yet week after week, it tore down American highways chasing crooks and saving David Hasselhoff from a sticky end.

KITT was AI before its time. A robot with wheels. A sentient machine that could think, act, and quip. But behind the jokes and high-speed chases, there lurks a question that only a barrister  would ask: if KITT had been in a crash, would Michael Knight have had any right to claim credit hire charges?

Fast forward to the 2020s. The age of autonomous vehicles is approaching. But credit hire claims remain very much rooted in the real world. Real roads. Real paperwork. Real MOTs. Which brings us to Majid Ali v Hsf Logistics Polska Sp. Z O.O [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, a recent decision of the Court of Appeal that considers whether a missing MOT certificate can sink a credit hire claim — and whether such a claim is barred by illegality.

Mr Ali’s parked car was struck by a lorry driven by the defendant’s employee. Liability for the accident was admitted. The damage to Mr Ali’s car was significant enough that it couldn’t be driven until repaired. He hired a replacement vehicle on credit hire terms — at a cost of over £21,000 for 36 days.

But there was a snag: Mr Ali’s car had no MOT at the time of the accident. It had expired four and a half months earlier.

The defendant raised two arguments in response to the claim for hire charges. First, that the claim should be barred altogether because of the doctrine of ex turpi causa — the idea that a person should not profit from their own unlawful act. Second, a defence: that because the claimant’s own car could not lawfully be driven, he had suffered no compensable loss when it was damaged.

The trial judge rejected the illegality argument. He found that the lack of an MOT did not defeat the entire claim. Mr Ali had not knowingly flouted the law, and there was no evidence that the car was unroadworthy. The breach — using a car without an MOT — was, in the judge’s eyes, careless but not morally serious. Parliament regards it as a minor offence, punishable by a fine. It does not carry points or disqualification. The judge held it would be disproportionate to deny compensation in full.

But then came the causation defence. The judge ruled that Mr Ali could not recover hire charges because, lacking an MOT, his car was not lawfully usable. He had no legal right to drive it on public roads. Therefore, said the judge, he had no loss of use that needed mitigation. No loss, no claim.

This reasoning was upheld on first appeal by Mr Justice Martin Spencer. But the Court of Appeal thought differently.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, giving the lead judgment, began by cutting to the heart of the matter. A claim for credit hire, he said, is a claim for loss of use. The loss is the inconvenience caused by not being able to use one’s car. If the claimant needed a car, and used his damaged vehicle to meet that need, then being deprived of it is a genuine loss. That need is not extinguished just because the vehicle lacked a valid MOT.

In short, the question is not whether the car could lawfully be used. It is whether the claimant actually used it to meet a genuine need before the accident. That is the test. If so, the loss is real, and the hire charges are a proper measure of that loss — provided the hire was reasonable.

In this case, Mr Ali had used his car regularly, both for work and pleasure. The court found that he had no reasonable alternative means of transport. He suffered inconvenience when his car was damaged. That inconvenience gave rise to a compensable loss.

What about the missing MOT? It was undoubtedly an offence to drive the car without one. But it was a summary offence, punishable only by a fine. It carried no endorsement, no disqualification, no imprisonment. The Court of Appeal was clear: this was a minor breach of the law. To deny a claim for £21,000 because of it would be grossly disproportionate.

As Lord Justice Stuart-Smith put it, the doctrine of ex turpi causa is grounded in public policy. It asks whether allowing a claim would damage the integrity of the legal system.  Proportionality matters. So too does the seriousness of the illegality.

The court also made a further point. If the causation defence succeeded, it would not stop with MOTs. It would apply to any defect that made use of a vehicle unlawful. A bald tyre. A defective light. A smudged number plate. The road to absurdity would lie wide open. Every credit hire claim would be dissected for minor breaches, each of which could be said to defeat loss of use.

That brings us back to our old friend, KITT. The talking car may have been a marvel of 1980s fiction, but in today’s world, KITT would be a compliance nightmare. Autonomous. Possibly uninsurable. Almost certainly operating without human oversight. In breach of a dozen regulations before it even left the garage. But if someone crashed into KITT while it was legally parked outside a supermarket, would it be fair to say the owner had suffered no loss?

So, what can we take from this judgment?

First, the absence of an MOT does not defeat a credit hire claim, provided the claimant can show real use and real need.

Second, ex turpi causa remains a live doctrine, but its application requires careful thought. Not every unlawful act will bar recovery. The courts will weigh the seriousness of the offence, the claimant’s conduct, and the public interest. A point left floating in the judgment is whether driving without insurance, is enough to ground an illegality defence.

Third, the so-called “causation defence” — that a claim fails because the vehicle could not be lawfully used — has been squarely rejected. It is illegality dressed up in a different coat. Without proportionality, it cannot stand.

In a way, the decision is common sense. The thread that links the nostalgia of Knight Rider with the black-and-white pages of the law reports on this occasion, is that both invite us to imagine a better world. One with justice, balance, and maybe a talking car or two.