Motor Vehicle Cost Of Repair – Court Rejects Labour Rate Incorporating Non Compensible Benefits

Recently, some motor vehicle repair shops have partnered with third party recovery agents to offer customers, who appear to be not at fault in a motor vehicle collision, “free” repairs on the basis that the customer does not have to pay for the cost of repairs and instead, authorises the recovery agent to recover and receive the cost of repair from the other party and/or other party’s insurer.

The plaintiff in Aisha Lopez -v- Sang Woo Kwak (UnreportedNSWLC, 2015(“Lopez”) took up on such an offer.

Unbeknown to the plaintiff however, the alleged cost of repair (which was calculated on the basis that the hourly labour rate was $130) included what the court ultimately found to be non-compensable benefits, such as:

  1. 10% fee payable to the third party recovery agent;
  2. an increase in the hourly labour rate to take into account the risk of carrying out repairs on credit; and
  3. an increase of about 2 to 3% to fact in some “room” to negotiate.

As such, the labour rate did not represent the true cost of repair. In Lopez the defendant argued that this was not the case.

The court found that the $130 per hour rate was excessive and reduced the rate to $81.67. In doing so, the court held that the additional fees and charges were not damages which were foreseeable or which flowed from the defendant’s negligence.

The court further noted that with respect to the ‘market rate’ there is ultimately not necessarily one ‘market rate’ that should be accepted by all insurers and repairers, but rather, there is a range that will be considered to be within the market rate, which would constitute being fair and reasonable. That range, as was accepted in Lopez is identified by taking into consideration things such as the number of employees working for the repairer, the equipment and the repair shop’s size.

This decision reaffirms the principle in Stocavaz v Fung [2007] NSWCA 199 that “Defendant is only required to pay the fair and reasonable cost of repairs to the Plaintiff’s car, not an extravagant or unreasonable cost” and follows the decision in Masrour v Danzey that non-compensable benefits (such as third party recover agent fees or credit hirer’s fees) are not recoverable.

William Roberts Lawyers acted for the Defendant in Lopez pursuant to instructions from the subrogated insurer.

Related News

What happens if you, as an insurer, have not yet concluded whether or not to indemnify an insured, and a third party commences Court proceedings against your insured (with the indemnity decision still pending)?

When these types of claims arise, an insurer (and its panel firm) can continue to act for an insured on a “reservation of rights” basis.

Read More

Can you sue if a “registered” company is “in liquidation”, “under administration” or has become “deregistered”? 

It is common to see Court proceedings commenced in the name of an individual or against an individual.   But sometimes, Court proceedings are commenced by

Read More

The Briginshaw-test

Did you know that the Briginshaw-test requires a higher standard of evidence in civil matters where serious allegations are made, such as fraud. This principle

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

Stay informed

Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
William Roberts Lawyers


Level 22
66 Goulburn Street


Level 21
535 Bourke Street


Level 8
300 Ann Street


Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place