Over many years, Chambers has built a strong reputation in defending against credit hire claims. Such claims are often, but not always, linked with personal injury claims or Civil Fraud and Fundamental Dishonesty (FD).

Chambers’ expertise covers the Small and Fast Tracks to high value Multi-track claims. Our Credit Hire Team has considerable experience in dealing with evolving credit hire issues such as enforceability disputes, presenting and challenging Basic Hire Rates, duration, need, credibility, loss of profit and impecuniosity.

Members of Chambers are available to deliver training to insurers and solicitors on the issues that commonly occur in credit hire litigation. For further details of training available and/or to discuss your requirements, please contact our marketing team at marketing@dekachambers.com. For details of past training which Members of Chambers have delivered, please see our past webinars.

Notable Cases

Salah v (1) Royal & Sun Alliance plc and Fastrack Storage Solutions Ltd, Wakefield County Court, 17.8.22 (Judgment) District Judge James.
Following an earlier trial in which Roger André obtained a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty (FD) and a staged slam on collision, Roger André followed by obtaining a Third Party Costs order against the credit hire and storage company, who were ordered to pay 2/3 of the Defendant’s costs of defending the Claimant’s claim and 100% of the Defendant’s £15,000 for the third party costs application.

Blake & oth v Advantage Insurance & oth (June 2022) Warwick CC
Although breach of duty against the insured was found, Roger André persuaded the Designated Civil Judge to make an order dismiss both Claimant’s PI claims and make a finding of FD under s.57 CJCA 2015 (due to exaggerated and dishonest PI claims). Accordingly, the credit hire element of the claim was struck out, with indemnity costs in favour of the Defendant insurer.

Zameer v Salah [2020] 3 WLUK 755
Roger André represented the Defendant. The First Claimant’s (C1) PI claim was found to be Fundamentally Dishonest (FD). His sister (C2) claimed for credit hire to replace the vehicle her brother allegedly drove in the incident. She was not involved in the alleged collision.  Although she was not found to be FD, her claim was dismissed. Being a mixed claim of PI for C1 and credit hire for C2, it was found that C2 had no QOCS protection and therefore costs were enforceable against her.

Portfolio Builder

Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)