David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited & Anor

Summary

The owner of a high-value sports car that caught fire and was destroyed sued the manufacturer that had rebuilt it and the dealer that had serviced it, in contract and negligence. His case was that the fire itself proved that one or other of them had been negligent.

Both defendants applied to strike the claim out, saying the particulars of claim did not set out the essential facts of any cause of action and did not tell either defendant the case it had to meet.

Mr Justice Eyre struck out the claim. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not fill the gap in the pleading, the claimant could not identify which defendant was responsible, and after years of delay there was no realistic prospect of a properly particularised claim, so it was too late to allow another attempt.

Background and facts

The claimant bought a McLaren sports car from the dealer, Stratstone, for 1.029 million pounds in 2015. After an accident that year the manufacturer, McLaren, rebuilt the car under a rebuild contract, and the dealer later carried out repair, service and maintenance work.

In October 2017 the car caught fire while the claimant was driving it and was a total loss. He said it was then worth 2.1 million pounds. In April 2024 he sued both defendants in contract and negligence, and relied on res ipsa loquitur, saying the fire was itself evidence of negligence and that the only inference was that one or other defendant was at fault.

The defendants applied to strike out the claim under the rules, on the ground that the particulars of claim did not plead the essential facts of a cause of action against either of them.

The issue

The court had to decide whether the particulars of claim disclosed a properly pleaded case, whether res ipsa loquitur allowed the claimant to proceed without identifying the specific breach or the responsible defendant, and whether the claimant should be given a further opportunity to plead his case.

The decision

Mr Justice Eyre struck out the claim. The particulars did not set out the essential facts needed to establish a cause of action against either defendant, and did not enable either to know the case it had to meet.

Res ipsa loquitur did not rescue the pleading. The maxim assists only where the circumstances show that the occurrence would not ordinarily have happened without negligence, and where the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant's control. A car that caught fire years after work by two different parties, where the claimant could not say which work or which party caused it, was not such a case. The claimant could not use the maxim to avoid identifying the breach or the responsible defendant, still less to run a case that one or other of two defendants must have been negligent.

The judge declined to give the claimant another chance to plead. There was no basis for believing that adequate particulars would be forthcoming given the claimant's state of knowledge, and the passage of time was against him:

"it is too late for the Claimant to be given a further opportunity to advance a properly particularised claim."Mr Justice Eyre, paragraph 105

He struck out the claim:

"Accordingly, the Defendants' applications succeed and the claim is to be struck out."Mr Justice Eyre, paragraph 106

Practical implications

Res ipsa loquitur is not a substitute for pleading a case. A claimant must still set out the essential facts of the breach and the cause of action. The maxim only shifts the evidential position where the event is one that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the thing was under the defendant's control, and it cannot be used to plead a claim that would otherwise be bare.

You cannot sue two defendants on the basis that one or other must be to blame. Where a claimant relies on res ipsa but cannot say which of several parties had control of the thing that failed, the maxim does not apply. A claimant facing a loss with more than one possible cause must investigate and plead which defendant is responsible and why, not leave the court to choose.

Investigate before you plead, and plead the facts you have. A claimant who issues a claim without the facts to support it, hoping to fill the gaps later, is exposed to strike out. Where expert examinations have already been carried out and the claimant still cannot identify the breach, the court will infer that proper particulars are not available.

Delay narrows the room for a second chance. The court weighed the years that had passed since the incident and the works, and the time the proceedings had already run, in refusing an opportunity to re-plead. A claimant who leaves a claim inadequately pleaded for a long time should not assume the court will keep the claim alive to allow another attempt.

David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited and Stratstone Sports Cars Limited [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Eyre. Heard 11 February 2026, judgment handed down 19 May 2026.