“Mr X, in the company of a young female acquaintance, lost control when driving the vehicle for purposes unrelated to his possession of the vehicle.”: [4].  

Has a saucier sentence even been written?  

Anyway, here a car owner gave possession of his 2006 F430 Spider Ferrari (which is a type of car, I’m told)* to a company for the company to rent it out. 

The owner said he did so because a person, the representor, said the company had insurance. It did not.  Car detailer, Mr X, came into the possession of the car and… see the quote above. The car was written off.   

The owner sued the company and the representor, and won. The judgment was “several”, to be paid separately by the company and the representor.   The company then went into liquidation.  The representor appealed. The car owner also appealed re the “several” judgment, saying it should have been “joint and several” meaning he could pursue the representor for the entire judgment noting the company was in liquidation.

Leave to appeal and pursue the company was granted to both because, at [17]: the dispute was genuine, about not insignificant amounts, and – due to dispute being a challenge to an earlier judgment – litigation was preferable to a proof of debt.

* - who cares about cars?