|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Shirlun & Anor v London Borough of Lambeth  EWCA Civ 1103 (11 July 2005)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1103
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(HHJ COLLINS CBE)
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
|MR SHIRLUN A CUMBERBATCH|
|THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J CARPENTER (instructed by MESSRS RICKSONS) appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENTS
Crown Copyright ©
"... the police and Lambeth Environmental Services were planning a joint operation to remove un-roadworthy vehicles from the streets."
That letter ended up moreover with this paragraph:
"Under our joint initiative, Lambeth Council and police intend to remove abandoned and/or un-roadworthy vehicles from Brixton on a regular basis as this has been identified in public meetings as one of the main concerns of residents."
There is a similar letter dated 8th January 1998 by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Flanders QPM, writing from the Metropolitan Police Service, 5 Area Headquarters Complaints Unit, to Mr Cumberbatch, which states:
"Over the last months Brixton Police in partnership with Lambeth Council Environmental Services have conducted a joint operation to improve the quality of life for residents of Lambeth. Part of this operation was to remove dangerous, un-roadworthy, illegal or apparently abandoned vehicles from the borough."
"In this case it seems to me here that this is a claim for loss of opportunity to make money out of a course of conduct which meant the repeated commission of summary offences. The court cannot condone that course of conduct by awarding damages for the loss of the opportunity to pursue it."
"In the end I do not find that I have to decide that point because it seems to me that there is only one sensible conclusion I can reach on the evidence, which is that these vehicles on the evidence had nothing other than scrap value on the dates when they were uplifted. If they had the really large values put on them by Mr Cumberbatch in his second schedule I would have expected it to be worth his while to pay up and make the money, but the fact that he did not is the proof of the pudding. They simply were not worth uplifting. Mr Carpenter suggested that I should treat the value as purely nominal, £5 each. I think that would be unrealistic. They undoubtedly had a value. It is impossible to go through it on a one by one basis. I can do nothing but award damages on a very broad rough and ready basis, and I am going to award £100 damages for each car which will make a total of £1900."
"Parkers Guide is no guide whatsoever to the actual value of these vehicles, many of which were scrap, although it is impossible in the case of these vehicles for me to have a clear view about any of them as to what their value or condition was."
Miss Hanif submits that the judge referred only to many of the cars in question as being "scrap", as if leaving open the possibility that some should be treated as having a greater value than that.
Order: Appeal allowed on Ground 2 only. Permission to amend the notice of appeal refused. Ground of appeal regarding costs dismissed. No further costs order.