The Piper/Hales 917 Court Case

[terence]

Originally Posted by dave vass

I couldn't agree more with this. I have been a friend of Mark Hales for over forty years and know that he is highly respected as a 'sympathetic' driver of historic cars; just ask Nick Mason for one.
He has on this instance been 'caught out' on a 'test' case which will leave motoring journalists quaking in their driving shoes!
Mark is such a smashing fellow, talented driver and competent journalist; but of course all this stands for nothing when an issue like what has happened to him occurs!
I hope all others who borrow, lend, share their cars will heed the warning of what Mark has sadly had to suffer at a life-changing cost!

Exactly why these things should not be discussed on a public forum. I happen to know both parties quite well,I also have a lot of respect for them both.Why is it necessary for these cases to be aired in the first place,it boils down to gossip,if thats what is needed,go to costas.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Exactly why these things should not be discussed on a public forum. I happen to know both parties quite well,I also have a lot of respect for them both.Why is it necessary for these cases to be aired in the first place,it boils down to gossip,if thats what is needed,go to costas.

You could argue that an internet forum is merely e-Costa with free coffee.

[chunder]

The news is on a daily newspapers pages online, so to be perfectly honest, discussing it on a small, very specialised forum is not really a problem. It is all over Twitter and facebook (all over being a differnt word compared to football and poltics and tv lol)

The court case as it stands has finished, the verdict is clear, so unless you just have a problem with people you might know being discussed tb, I can't see an issue with the issues and problems raised being chatted about?

And as always, the mods I am sure are well aware and as earlier posted will surely close the thread if things get out of hand, but so far its been an interesting discussion.

I somehow doubt that any car lending will be affected, this sounds more like a financial and personal dispute than anything else.

What it might mean is that journos testing valuable cars might have to sign something official as a sort of pre nup, which to be honest if it hasnt been done this way by now I would have thought rather staggering considering the sums of moneya nd value of certain machines involved.

Does anyone know if a sort of signing your car away form exists for manufacturers or journo's likewise?

I know I never signed anything for driving some of the stuff I drove!! (do go karts and stock cars count?)

[johngee]

Originally Posted by midgetman

You could argue that an internet forum is merely e-Costa with free coffee.

or indeed as a regular contributor has on his signature "It's the internet - who cares"

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Exactly why these things should not be discussed on a public forum. I happen to know both parties quite well,I also have a lot of respect for them both.Why is it necessary for these cases to be aired in the first place,it boils down to gossip,if thats what is needed,go to costas.

But it's not gossip. It's a court case that has concluded... with a verdict... and that is extensively publicised in the media. All of this is fact... surely.

[simes43]

I have been lucky enough to have been asked to race lots of other peoples cars over the years, no paperwork etc. This situation does make you think!

[Stacy]

It's been understandably wearing for him as you might imagine.

Actually (and I was there) it wasn't so much a case about a missed gear or a gearbox fault, it was more a case of insurance, or the lack of it, multiple publishing houses and later disputed conversations about who pays in the event of a failure, and what was meant by mechanical failure through human error against mechanical failure through negligence. After publishers, insurance companies and the owner stepped away there was one individual unwittingly in the cross hairs.

Unfortunately it wasn't a great few days and Mark was a pretty combative witness (well you might be in the circumstances) and the judge obviously took issue. This was a case of one persons word against another (with corroboration on both sides) and he preferred Pipers' version. There's not much more to say.

Fortunately Mark has a huge amount of support in the industry, and some big names have stepped in both publicly and privately. Multiple publishing houses and writers are currently coming together to work on a solution. Some emails are doing the rounds now.

As I've said elsewhere it is my view (contrary to a number of others) that Piper should be recompensed, but the offers at the time weren't agreeable.

I smiled at the brothel gag. I imagine the seats are more comfortable there too.

There are wider ramifications too - John Fitzpatrick and others are talking about the need for prior legal agreements for Goodwood etc now. Other publishers thinking the same for testing.

S.

[johngee]

Originally Posted by Stacy

I smiled at the brothel gag. I imagine the seats are more comfortable there too.

I'm here all week and available for all functions, if they include dinner.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Stacy

As I've said elsewhere it is my view (contrary to a number of others) that Piper should be recompensed, but the offers at the time weren't agreeable.

S.

Given that the magazines seem to be full of tests of cars that are coming up for sale I wonder if the test of the car did not help the sale of the car, in which case Piper was recompensed.

I'd be interested to know what the damage was, 50 grand wouldn't rebuild a 4-cam 356 engine so I doubt there was a great deal of damage.

As for insurance it is very difficult to insure race engines, something to do with people who "unfortunately" blew up their engines just before they needed a rebuild.

Apart from the possible effect on the content of classic car magazines the worst aspect of all is that the pen pushers made far more money than the engine builders.

Such issues have already been raised about Goodwood, apparently people who've had their cars damaged by star drivers find they have to pay for the privilege themselves.

[Lancsbreaker]

If you want a lengthy read:

http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/piperhales.pdf

I've commented elsewhere on the appalling standard of the document - mis-spellings, etc

There may be other judgements on lawyers, insurance companies etc.....

[DaveGT6]

Originally Posted by midgetman

But really, we need to get a sense of perspective and stop a legal proceedings trebling the original disputed amount, it's an absolute scandal. Jarndice is alive and kicking!

Now you've gone all cultural I've got adverts for Bleak House appearing on this thread!

[Stacy]

I'm not really qualified to speak to how much a magazine article would add to a £1.25m car, but I'd suspect not a lot. A £12.5k car absolutely.

The judgement was a beasting, as I said the judge appeared very pro DP and very ansi MH from the outset, and became frustrated repeatedly with counsel. Interesting lesson to watch it if a little deflating.

It's also factually incorrect though, and I know the MH side are preparing a formal response. Expecting that soon.

S.

[Al Weyman]

12 days labour to pull and refit the engine??? I hope the engineers at Le Mans were quicker than that in the day.

This whole case reminds me of a driver who raced in my old club that took a certain well known company to court because his race engine in his opinion was not racy enough and couldnt keep up with the HT Racing engined cars, oddly enough the defendant actually produced Marks CC & C predecessor Art Marcos as a witness. Well I advised my friend not to take the issue to court as you are asking a layman, the judge, to adjudicate on the definition of what is and isnt a race engine something that even died in the wool petrolheads would have a problem doing. I mean a blue printed CVH engine would be a race engine by some peoples definition but in fact is only an engine built to precise manufacturers specifications. He lost the first round so I advised him again but no he took it further and further and ended up loosing a fortune in barristers fees and court costs and lost the case, it cost his marraige and his home, a hard lesson to learn but highlights the problems when a layman however learned is asked to make a decision on a very technical subject.

[David Stallard]

Bit of a loss for what to say here - stinks of 'old boys club / secret handshake' against Mark.

Having been on the losing side of a 'he said / he said' court case I know how frustrating it is (okay - no where near the amounts involved here) and I guess waiting a few months and then accidently breaking his legs is probably not the best plan for going forward from here. . . . . .

If I could help I would, but all I can offer is moral support. Keep your chin up Boss.

.DAVID.

I hate to think of the damage this has done to future features / events [walks off shaking head]

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by midgetman

It's unfortunate that 2/3rds of the bill is costs, and reinforces the impression that justice is only for the well-heeled.

I'm sure that the legal eagles are worth every penny thanks to their long and expensive training, and I make my comment only from a position of jealousy. But really, we need to get a sense of perspective and stop a legal proceedings trebling the original disputed amount, it's an absolute scandal. Jarndice is alive and kicking!

You're right - costs should not be at that level. There is a requirement in the Civil Procedure Rules that costs ought to be proportionate. A £50k claim should not cost more than £25k or so to bring to trial.

So if Piper were awarded more in costs than the claim there are usually two reasons. One, Piper offered to accept less than he was awarded. In those circumstances the courts punish a losing party for dragging it on to a fruitless trial by making them pay the full amount (rather than knocking a bit off for inefficiency/red herrings, normally a quarter-a third is taken off the bill). Two, the defence pretty much forced Piper's team to rack up the costs.

And one of the points on which the court would rely would be Mark Hales' admission in July 2009 that it was all his fault. Which he made in writing.

Indeed Piper tried to claim on Hales' insurance first; it was only when they declined cover that he went after Hales.

[Stacy]

Not quite true actually, Piper was dealing with Octanes insurers first, via Octane, not Mark. The letter you refer to was also sent by Octane to their insurers, rather than from Mark. Out of court settlements were also offered. Costs are high, but perhaps not for the high court when the defence had 7 points to argue.

As I said there is a response coming too.

To address David's point I don't buy the demonising of Piper argument. He wanted his recompense and got it, just from the wrong bloke in my opinion. If we were saying Felix Dennis would be paying no one would blink. MH has ended up being an unfortunate pawn to some extent.

Besides its a refreshing change to see a forum that hasn't sapped my life force with pages and pages of misconception and vitriol in both directions. I'd rather this didn't go there too.

On a darkly comical point, Mark was told by someone not to mess around with his barrister and to hire a certain guy. "He's an absolute fortune at a grand and a half an hour, but he's **** hot. Win guaranteed.". When the day arrived guess who they were up against.. They were right too, he could do a job on Mother Theresa. I'm getting his business card.

S.

[john ruston]

DP owns cars and most people know treats it as a serious business.

MH drives cars and writes for a living.

The one certainty was that should anything go wrong it was never going to be DP's bill to pick up!

I would say that, being an owner and agreeing to the bend it mend it rules with most of my drivers, it is surprising how many of them try to duck responsibility when it all ends up in tears. I have some superb E Mails, must find a decent lawyer!

Years ago a bloke I knew bent a Ford 3L at Spa and got really screwed with costs by the owner.

Never raced again.

Decided that with my cars if they can't afford it shouldn't do it.

[davyboy]

If we cut to the core of this argument which is responsibility in the event of mechanical failure of a 'lent out' racing car, I'm wondering how this can be satisfactorily dealt with going forward. How could you reasonably insure against this in the case of a very expensive, and inherently unreliable, vintage racing car ? Yes there are underwriters who would take it on, but the premium would be nigh enough the cost of any damage... making it prohibitive. That's the reason why so much of this stuff is done on gentleman's agreements. As we've seen here however, these can end disastrously.

[Al Weyman]

I have said this on another thread and I think the only real safe way of covering both parties is for the driver to 'buy' the car for its full value and hand over a cheque with an agreement the car is sold back when the car is handed back at the end of the session ever that or jointly own the thing. As a matter of interest with the mechanical thing just suppose it had over revved and did the damage internally but not let go, just broke a valve spring or something and the next time the car is taken out by the owner it does let go on the 1st or 2nd lap, who is responsible then, is there still a case to answer?

Having been on the losing side of a 'he said / he said' court case I know how frustrating it is (okay - no where near the amounts involved here) and I guess waiting a few months and then accidently breaking his legs is probably not the best plan for going forward from here. . . . . .

That would be difficult, he only has one!

[davyboy]

Andrew Frankel's take on it.

[FISCracer]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Andrew Frankel's take on it.

A couple of salient quotes

my experience of owners who have let me drive their cars is that they are generous, trusting enthusiasts who understand the risks entirely and are perfectly happy to shoulder them themselves, partly because they can afford to, but more importantly, they want to see their cars in the magazine for all sorts of obvious reasons

To me, it goes to show how unfortunate Hales was to have encountered an owner unprepared to accept that sometimes things go wrong when even the best old cars are driven by the best track testers and instead elects to hound him through the courts for damages that I for one could not remotely afford

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by FISCracer

A couple of salient quotes

my experience of owners who have let me drive their cars is that they are generous, trusting enthusiasts who understand the risks entirely and are perfectly happy to shoulder them themselves, partly because they can afford to, but more importantly, they want to see their cars in the magazine for all sorts of obvious reasons

To me, it goes to show how unfortunate Hales was to have encountered an owner unprepared to accept that sometimes things go wrong when even the best old cars are driven by the best track testers and instead elects to hound him through the courts for damages that I for one could not remotely afford

yes they stood out to me, too.

[zefarelly]

And we wonder why some relics languish in museums . . . .

[relativtortoise]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

And we wonder why some relics languish in museums . . . .

You've pedalled for JR in the past - were you happy to cover the costs of any damage that occurred?

Did you have a split agreement between mech and bodywork?

[john ruston]

Joe,Zef, and Jason were invited by me to drive the car so it was my risk.It's the people who ask to drive the cars and then knowing the deal try to get out of it **** you off.

Have stopped doing it .My cheque book and their brilliance don't mix.
Surprising how many of these budding superstars can't drive.