*KILLER AUDI
*potential
​
​
Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Limited
[2022] EWCA Civ 1339
20 Oct 2022
Copy URL
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Kynaston-Mainwaring v. GVE London Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 1339, concerning the purchase and flooding of a luxury Mercedes-Benz AMG GTC Roadster convertible.
The Respondent had purchased the vehicle from GVE London Limited (“GVE”) for £122,000. In November 2019, it suffered catastrophic flooding, after being parked outside, with extensive damage being caused to the car’s electrical components.
At the trial below, the Judge accepted the explanation for the flooding which was provided by the parties’ experts. This was that a blocked drainage channel had resulted in rainwater overflowing into the car’s passenger footwell. The blockage was attributed to a potential design weakness of the drainage channel. The Judge ultimately concluded that this car was not of satisfactory quality, pursuant to section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
GVE challenged the decision on appeal, contending that the Judge had erred in fact, in finding that this car was not of satisfactory quality. GVE also argued that the Judge had erred in law, when applying section 9 of the 2015 Act.
The Court of Appeal (Phillips LJ, with Green and Snowden LJJ concurring) dismissed the appeal on both grounds. The Court held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the Judge was plainly wrong, nor that his decision was one that no reasonable judge could have reached, in respect of his key finding of fact, being that the blocked drainage channel was cleared during a service in May 2019.
The Court also emphasised that the judge below had decided that the particular car in question was not of satisfactory quality. The Court made clear that its judgment on appeal should not be taken as a more general determination, or even support for a wider view, that this model of car, or this design of drainage channel, has an inherent defect such as to render other such vehicles not of satisfactory quality.
5 July 2024|
Estimated reading time 4 minutes
This article explores how the Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd case sheds light on the satisfactory quality of vehicles with inherent defects under the Consumer Rights Act. Learn about design weaknesses and legal implications.
Introduction
When purchasing a vehicle, consumers expect it to be of satisfactory quality. However, what happens if a vehicle has an inherent defect? The case of Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd provides valuable insights into how the courts address issues of vehicle quality under the Consumer Rights Act. This case can have broader implications for vehicles with inherent defects or potential design weaknesses.
The facts
The case of Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd involved the sale of a Mercedes AMG GTC Roadster 2-door convertible for £122,000 which the Claimant took delivery of in September 2018. Thereafter the Mercedes was predominantly garaged.
When she came to use the car in November 2019, the footwell was found to be flooded with water causing significant damage to the electrical components and wiring of the car.
Ms Kynaston-Mainwaring contended the car was not of satisfactory quality and rejected it and requested a refund for the car which GVE declined, causing her to issue court proceedings.
At trial it was found that the Mercedes not uncommon with other vehicles has a drainage channel which runs from the rear of the roof of the car and exits on the underside of the car which became blocked resulting in water ingress and damage.
The trial judge found the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality and ordered Ms Kynaston-Mainwaring had validly rejected the car and GVE to pay her £117,000 being the purchase price less £5000 for usage. GVE were unsuccessful on appeal.
For a case review and advice
Book a 1 hour Consultation with an automotive lawyer
£250 + VAT
Per hour
Conference will be via Zoom. Terms and conditions apply
1. Design weakness
Both parties accepted the Mercedes AMG had a “potential weakness” of design or inherent defect.
This allowed small items of debris to enter and build up in the drainage the channel resulting blockage and flooding.
The appellant car dealership contended this “should be managed by routine servicing.”
2. Satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act
The court of first instance found a car that is capable of flooding in this way cannot be said to be of satisfactory quality under section 9 of the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.
Lord Justice Phillips stressed his judgment, should not be taken to support this model of car, or this design of drainage channel, has an inherent defect such as to render such vehicles not of satisfactory quality.
It therefore follows that it is the nature of the consequences of the inherent defect which renders is unsatisfactory quality.
3. Right to Repair and Consumer Remedies
Ordinarily it the remedies under the Consumer Rights Act are viewed in stages or tiers: the first being short term right to reject, then the right to repair and then if the repair fails the final right to reject.
However, in the Kynaston-Mainwaring case the Judge ruled that as the car would only achieve salvage value of £8500, the correct remedy should be the final right to reject, with the return of the purchase price subject to a reasonable deduction for usage, dispelling the strict interpretation of the staged approach.
Conclusion
The Kynaston-Mainwaring v GVE London Ltd case highlights crucial aspects of consumer rights regarding the satisfactory quality of vehicles with inherent defects. It underscores the importance of understanding how design flaws and their consequences can impact consumer remedies under the law.
The underlying legal principle there is the same as with other statutory quality and fitness claims under the Consumer Rights Act 2015: a defect that significantly undermines the quality or safety of the vehicle at delivery means it was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.
Consumer Rights - Sports Car Buyer Receives £117,000 Refund and Damages
3 January 2023
When buying anything, from a toothbrush to a luxury car, consumers are entitled to expect that their purchases are of satisfactory quality. The point was made by the case of a woman whose high-end sports car sprang a catastrophic leak.
About 15 months after the woman purchased the car from a dealership for £122,000, she discovered that its footwell had filled with rainwater. The flood caused extensive damage to the car's electrical components and wiring. The woman launched proceedings against the dealership under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, asserting that the car was not of satisfactory quality when she bought it.
The dealership vehemently denied liability. It pointed out that there was no previous recorded incident of a car of the same model suffering a similar flood. It contended that the most probable cause of the incident was that a blocked drainage channel had not been cleared when the car was serviced by a third party several months after the woman purchased it.
In upholding her claim, however, a judge found that the particular car suffered from an inherent defect. The ruling meant that she was entitled to return the car to the dealership and to a refund of £117,000, that sum representing the purchase price less a discount to reflect her use of the car. The dealership was further ordered to pay her £1,334 in damages.
The dealership's appeal against that outcome focused on the judge's finding that it was more likely than not that the drainage channel had been cleared during the service. That finding, the dealership contended, was based entirely on inference, flawed reasoning and, to some extent, speculation.
Ruling on the matter, the Court of Appeal noted that the dealership's interpretation of events leading up to the flood was plausible. However, there was evidence that rationally supported the judge's key finding of fact and the dealership had fallen well short of establishing that his conclusion was plainly wrong. The appeal was dismissed.