Playing The Blame Game: Withdrawing Admissions Of Liability

Withdrawing an admission of liability is not undertaken lightly, but is sometimes necessary.

In particular, it can be a very important tool for limiting claims spend where a claim that is originally presented within the fast track later becomes a larger loss claim once quantum evidence is gathered.

We explore below the judiciary's approach to applications for permission to withdraw admissions in these circumstances, including consideration of the recent appeal decision in The Royal Automobile Club v Catherine Wright [2019] EWHC 913 (QB).

Background

The Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR") and accompanying Practice Direction ("PD") require a defendant to make an application to the court seeking permission to withdraw an admission of liability.

A pre-action admission can also be withdrawn if all parties consent or with court permission (if the matter has become litigated).

When considering an application for permission, the court will have regard to the factors listed in PD 14 para 7.2 namely:

The grounds upon which the admission is to be withdrawn including whether or not new evidence has since come to light The parties' conduct The prejudice that may be caused if the admission is withdrawn or if it is refused The stage in the proceedings at which the application to withdraw is made The prospects of success of the claim if the admission is withdrawn The interests of the administration of justice Furthermore, as with all case management decisions, the Court considers the 'overriding objective' of "enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost".

Case law

The Royal Automobile Club v Catherine Wright [2019] EWHC 913 (QB)

The Defendant appealed a refusal of permission to withdraw a pre-action admission.

The Letter of Claim proposed obtaining evidence from orthopaedic, pain and psychiatry experts following fibula and tibia fractures and the alleged development of complex regional pain syndrome. The Defendant argued that the matter should be submitted via the Portal. The Claimant disagreed and the parties decided to leave quantum to one side. The Defendant then admitted liability following investigations.

The Claimant gathered medical evidence from the aforementioned experts and presented a Schedule of Loss valuing the claim around £1m.

The Defendant initially raised contributory negligence arguments, later seeking to withdraw the admission of liability entirely. The Claimant issued proceedings, relying on the admission.

The...