Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Resiling from Admissions
DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: THE SOLICITORS CONDUCT WAS A "MATTER OF VERY REAL CONCERN"  - BUT THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED

DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: THE SOLICITORS CONDUCT WAS A “MATTER OF VERY REAL CONCERN” – BUT THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED

June 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Applications to withdraw from admissions often give rise to controversy.  Here a defendant to a clinical negligence made such an application very late and on the grounds that there had been a change of expert and thus a change of…

SOLICITORS REFERRALS, TOMLIN ORDERS, UNLAWFUL TERMS, ADMISSIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO WITHDRAW FROM  THOSE ADMISSIONS: A LOT OF LEGAL LIFE IS HERE...

SOLICITORS REFERRALS, TOMLIN ORDERS, UNLAWFUL TERMS, ADMISSIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO WITHDRAW FROM THOSE ADMISSIONS: A LOT OF LEGAL LIFE IS HERE…

March 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There have been many interesting cases relating to “admissions” on this site. Here we have a intriguing case relating to a solicitor’s dispute with a former member of staff. It involves Tomlin orders which were partially unlawful, admissions and attempts…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 58:  THE DEFENDANTS' PLEADING DID NOT CONTAIN AN "ADMISSION": APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMENDMENTS DISMISSED

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 58: THE DEFENDANTS’ PLEADING DID NOT CONTAIN AN “ADMISSION”: APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMENDMENTS DISMISSED

February 25, 2026 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

This is a case where the court had to consider whether a defence had originally contained an “admission”  such that the defendants required express permission to resile from it.  The court found that, on close analysis, there was no such…

SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT

SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT

October 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

This is a case about mistakes in litigation and the rules relating to allowing the withdrawal of a pre-action admission.  The judgment was given 10 years ago, but arrived on BAILII today.  The issues raised here remain highly relevant.  In…

NEW RULES AS TO ADMISSIONS: READ THEM HERE: IN FORCE 1st OCTOBER 2023

NEW RULES AS TO ADMISSIONS: READ THEM HERE: IN FORCE 1st OCTOBER 2023

September 14, 2023 · by gexall · in Admissions, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Rule Changes

The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2023 introduce a “new” Part 14 on admissions.  The is not to make any substantial changes but are part of a process of simplifying the rules.  So, for instance, the criteria for seeking to…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 92: RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS - A SUMMARY OF THE LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 92: RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS – A SUMMARY OF THE LAW

December 20, 2021 · by gexall · in Admissions, Appeals, Members Content

The judgment of Master Stevens in  Shah v London Borough of Barnet [2021] EWHC 2631 (QB) provides an essential summary of the rules and case law in relation to resiling from admissions.   The decision itself was looked at in an…

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RESILE FROM ADMISSION: GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD "REFLECT BADLY ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM"

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RESILE FROM ADMISSION: GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD “REFLECT BADLY ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM”

December 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Members Content

In  Shah v London Borough of Barnet [2021] EWHC 2631 (QB) Master Stevens refused the defendant’s application for permission to resile from a pre-action admission. “On the particular facts of this case, I believe it would reflect poorly on the…

RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS - ISN'T THAT EASY : WITH A HOMAGE TO  THE WIT AND WISDOM OF  RALPH GUIDE DOG (RETIRED)

RESILING FROM ADMISSIONS – ISN’T THAT EASY : WITH A HOMAGE TO THE WIT AND WISDOM OF RALPH GUIDE DOG (RETIRED)

May 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Admissions, Appeals, Applications, Members Content

I got nudged into writing this post on withdrawing from admissions by  Ralph Guide Dog, (Retired).   So, especially for Ralph – who has always taken a keen interest in all things legal,  the latest High Court decision on resiling from…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.