Description
The Court of Appeal held that the judge's decision, that the Claimant had unreasonably failed to mitigate her loss in failing to accept the Defendant's offer of a replacement vehicle, was procedurally irregular in that the judge had decided the appeal on a basis contrary to the way in which it had been argued before him and without any indication that he was so minded (namely he did not hear any submissions on whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Copley v. Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580 should be followed). Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that the judge had not been entitled to disregard the decision in Copley, notwithstanding his disagreement with the decision and his doubts as to its reconciliation with previous decisions of the House of Lords.
