AMANDA CLARK v ARDINGTON ELECTRICAL SERVICES & (1) HELPHIRE (UK) LTD (2) ANGEL ASSISTANCE LTD

[Donald ramsbottom]

Having refered to 3rd party non disclosure recently a case has just popped
up on Lawtel which deals with some aspects. As ever ignore if not
interested in Law.




AMANDA CLARK v ARDINGTON ELECTRICAL SERVICES & (1) HELPHIRE (UK) LTD (2)
ANGEL 
ASSISTANCE LTD (Respondents to Non-party Disclosure) (2001) 

Court:
CA (Thorpe LJ, Tuckey LJ) 4/4/2001 

Subject:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - CPR - EVIDENCE - INSURANCE - ROAD TRAFFIC 

Descriptors:
NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE : MOTOR INSURANCE POLICIES : CREDIT AGREEMENTS :
HELPHIRE 
SCHEMES : ROAD ACCIDENTS : INNOCENT VICTIMS : INSURANCE COMPANIES : CAR HIRE 
: CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 : STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CREDIT : CIVIL
PROCEDURE 
RULES 1998 SI 1998/3132 : CPR 31.17 : CPR PART 31 : AMOUNTS PAYABLE : SHAMS 
: ISSUES RAISED IN PROCEEDINGS : TRIAL JUDGE TO DECIDE ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE 
: MERITS : TEST CASES 

Summary:
Order for non-party disclosure upheld because, in this test case as to the 
validity of Helphire Schemes, the trial judge was entitled to have the full 
picture in front of him, and the documents satisfied the two limbs of CPR
31.17. 


Text:
Appeal from an order of non-party disclosure made by HH Judge Harris QC at 
Oxford County Court on 19 September 2000. The appellants were Helphire (UK) 
Ltd and Angel Assistance Ltd ('A'), which were subsidiaries or associated
companies 
of The Helphire Group, a group of companies which ran accident repair and car 
hire schemes for motorists who were innocent victims of road accidents
('Helphire 
Scheme'). The Helphire Scheme provided, inter alia, repairs to drivers'
vehicles 
and replacement hire cars whilst the repairs were being carried out. Such
schemes 
made credit available to members for car hire and repair until such time that 
the negligent driver's insurance company made sums available. Similar schemes 
to the Helphire Scheme were considered in Giles v Thompson : Devlin v
Baslington (1993)
 2 WLR 908 and Dimond v Lovell (2000)
 2 WLR 1121. Under the Helphire Scheme, repairs to a damaged vehicle were
approved 
by a firm of engineers. Invoices were produced with a credit repair agreement 
that stated that the consumer had credit on the sums charged. In May 1999, 
Amanda Clark ('C') was involved in a road accident with a vehicle belonging 
to Ardington Electrical Services ('D'). D admitted liability. D was insured 
by Cornhill Insurance ('Cornhill') who alleged, with other insurers, that the 
credit arrangement made between C and A under the Helphire Scheme was a
credit 
hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and was therefore 
unenforceable because it failed to comply with the required statutory
conditions. 
Alternatively, Cornhill contended that the scheme was a sham designed to
conceal 
open ended credit provided to a consumer. Accordingly, they applied under
CPR 31.17
 for non-party disclosure from A of documents and invoices that showed
details 
of repair invoices and who paid them, on the grounds that the documents
showed 
that only certain amounts paid by Helphire to repair companies were
recoverable 
from the insurers, and that such documents proved that the scheme was a sham. 
Howewver, A argued that the documents were irrelevant in the insurance claim 
because what mattered was what was paid by C as the innocent victim of an
accident, 
and not what was paid by Helphire to the repair centres. HH Judge Harris QC 
made the order sought on the grounds that Cornhill needed to see the
documents 
to see what was actually being claimed, and that the documents were necessary 
to deal fairly with the proceedings. This was A's appeal from that order on 
the grounds that neither limb of CPR 31.17 had been satisfied because the
documents 
sought were irrelevant to the proceedings. Further, A argued that the
indebtedness 
owed by C was to A for services provided and, accordingly, whatever amount 
Helphire paid was irrelevant. 

HELD: (1) The question that needed to be answered on an application for
discovery 
of a non-party was whether the court should have proceeded to resolve to
answer 
issues raised in order to see if the documents were relevant. The court ought 
not to determine disputes of substance. (2) In the instant case, the issues 
with which the documents assisted in determining were raised in the defence 
pleaded and no attempt was made to strike those pleadings out. (3) It was for 
the trial judge to determine the issues of substance taking into account
documents 
made available through discovery and applicable law. (4) In the instant case, 
the judge was right not to enter into the merits of the claims made. He
directed 
himself correctly as to the requirements of CPR 31.17 and both limbs were
satisfied. 
(5) The instant case was a test case in that there were a number of
proceedings 
live in the county courts that considered the Helphire Scheme. Accordingly, 
the trial judge was entitled to have the full picture before him, and the
documents 
sought were relevant to the substantial issues between the parties. 

Appeal dismissed. 




Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted