AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Overheads Allowed in Damages

15th July 1955, Page 38
15th July 1955
Page 38
Page 38, 15th July 1955 — Overheads Allowed in Damages
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE London Transport Executive I were entitled to add 10 per cent. establishment costs to the charge for the repair of a Green Line coach, and to claim the total sum from the driver of the car which struck the vehicle.

This was decided by the Queen's Bench Division last week when Lord Goddard. Lord Chief Justice, gave judgment in favour of the Executive on a £233 claim for damages to a coach which collided with a car driven by Mr. John Eyre Godson Bartholomew, Holland Villas Road, Kensington, in February. 1953.

Mr. Bartholomew denied liability and disputed the amount of the claim. The action was originally brought against Mr. Bartholomew's employers, the owners of the car, but was discontinued against them.

In preparing the cost of the repairs to the coach, materials were entered at £60 and labour at £107, these being figures incorporating a 5 per cent. increase on the cost of materials and 129 per cent. on labour. There was then added 10 per cent, for head-office establishment charges, deemed to cover some contribution to interest on capital, a statutory liability.

Mr. R. Armstrong-Jones. Q.C.. for Mr. Bartholomew. contended that the Executive could not properly charge the additional 10 per cent., which took into account the running of Underground trains and everything that happened at head office.

Lord Goddard said that the accident occurred when the coach had pulled up or was just pulling up. Mr. Bartholomew, who was corning from the opposite direction at 25 m.p.h., "asked for" a skid, as there was ice on the road, and was liable for the accident.

The claim for repairs was reasonable. If the coach had been repaired at an ordinary garage, something would have been added for office expenses and the 10 per cent, addition, said to be a customary charge, was not unfair.

The Executive were awarded costs of the action.


comments powered by Disqus