Zebra Law has secured a significant trial success in a disputed motorcycle claim, with the Court dismissing a credit hire claim valued at £73,157.23 in its entirety.
The claim arose from an incident in which the policyholder reversed into the claimant’s stationary motorcycle, causing both the motorcycle and rider to fall to the ground. While breach of duty was accepted, the claimant pursued a claim approaching £90,000, including pre-accident value, storage, recovery, personal injury, miscellaneous losses and a substantial claim for credit hire.
Following disclosure, several heads of loss were resolved during the proceedings. However, Zebra Law maintained a robust position in relation to the credit hire claim, where concerns centred on need, usage, delay and the evidential basis for the hire period.
A key feature of the defence strategy was the use of expert engineering evidence. Zebra obtained evidence, which indicated that the claimant’s motorcycle could have been placed back on the road by way of temporary repairs costing just over £400. Permission was obtained to rely on that evidence, which in turn led to further scrutiny of the claimant’s engineering position.
During the proceedings, issues emerged concerning the claimant’s original engineering evidence, including the identity of the inspecting engineer. This resulted in a series of applications by the claimant to correct their engineering evidence, with Zebra recovering application costs totalling £6,206.07 for the client.
At trial, the Court dismissed the credit hire claim and recovery claim. In reaching its decision, the Court accepted the defence position that the claimant had not established need. The evidence showed that the claimant’s pre-accident motorcycle usage was minimal, with MOT history disclosing fewer than 300 miles per year in each of the previous three years. The claimant also accepted in evidence that the motorcycle was not required for commuting and that there were days or weeks when the hire vehicle was not used.
The Court further accepted the defence submissions on inspection delay, finding that the claimant could not simply wait for several months for an inspection to be arranged. The recovery claim was also rejected as unnecessary and inadequately evidenced, and the physiotherapy invoice was reduced.
Overall, the outcome delivered substantial savings for the insurer, including:
Credit hire dismissed £73,157.23
Damages and costs reserve savings £90,706.07
Recovered application costs £6,206.07
The result also meant that Zebra beat its own Part 36 offer, made in July 2025, allowing defence costs to be offset against those due to the claimant’s solicitors.
Commenting on the result, Chris Bakker of Zebra Law said:
“This was an excellent result for our client and a clear example of why credit hire claims must be tested carefully, even where breach of duty is admitted. The claimant still has to prove need, reasonableness and the evidential basis for the losses claimed.
In this case, the evidence simply did not support the level of hire being pursued. By focusing on usage, delay and the engineering evidence, we were able to secure the complete dismissal of a credit hire claim worth more than £73,000, together with a significant saving for the insurer.”
This case demonstrates the importance of early evidence gathering, careful analysis of vehicle usage, and a proactive approach to challenging disproportionate credit hire claims. It also highlights the value of targeted expert evidence and robust interim applications where the claimant’s evidential position requires scrutiny.
For insurers and MGAs, the decision is a further reminder that admitted breach of duty does not remove the claimant’s burden to prove need, reasonableness and evidential support for every head of loss claimed.