Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Withdrawing admissions
VERY LATE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS REFUSED: ADMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY REMAINED BINDING

VERY LATE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS REFUSED: ADMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY REMAINED BINDING

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Statements of Case

I am grateful to John De Waal QC for pointing out the procedural aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Edwin Johnson in Valley View Health Centre (a firm) & Ors v NHS Property Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 1393 (Ch)….

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM AN ADMISSION: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION OF HIGH COURT JUDGE

DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM AN ADMISSION: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION OF HIGH COURT JUDGE

July 20, 2021 · by gexall · in Admissions, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure

In J v A South Wales Local Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 1102 the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision refusing a defendant permission to resile from an admission. “There is no doubt that the checklist at paragraph 7.2 is…

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: "THE WHOLE POINT OF THINGS BEING ADMITTED IS THAT PARTIES CAN MOVE ON AND NOT BE BOTHERED WITH INVESTIGATING SUCH MATTERS"

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: “THE WHOLE POINT OF THINGS BEING ADMITTED IS THAT PARTIES CAN MOVE ON AND NOT BE BOTHERED WITH INVESTIGATING SUCH MATTERS”

January 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications

In Advinia Care Homes Ltd v (1) BUPA Care Homes Investments (Holdings) Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1563 (Ch) Mr Michael Green QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused a claimant’s application to withdraw from an admission. “The whole…

"PLEADINGS ARE NOT A GAME OF LUDO": TESCO REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION

“PLEADINGS ARE NOT A GAME OF LUDO”: TESCO REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION

December 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Civil Procedure

In SL Claimants v Tesco Plc [2019] EWHC 3312 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard refused an application by Tesco PLC to withdraw an admission.   There is a detailed consideration of the factors to be considered when a party seeks permission to…

DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION: CHANGE IN VALUE OF THE CLAIM IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA

DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION: CHANGE IN VALUE OF THE CLAIM IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA

December 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Admissions, Appeals

An earlier post looked at the decision in Wood -v- Days Health UK Ltd & Others [2016] WHC 1079 (QB) where a defendant was refused permission to withdraw from an admission.  That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Wood…

APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION REFUSED: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED

May 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Conduct, Uncategorized

NB – THE JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW THE FIRST DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ADMISSION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. See the post here. The judgment yesterday in Wood -v- Days Health UK Ltd & Others [2016] WHC 1079…

DEFENDANT NOT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSION AND DEBARRED FROM RELYING ON FURTHER EVIDENCE: PLEADINGS ARE STILL IMPORTANT

November 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Expert evidence, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In Clark -v- Braintree Clinical Services Limited [2015] EWHC 3181 HH Judge Burrell QC  (sitting as a High Court judge) refused a defendant’s application to resile from an admission. He also granted the claimant’s application to debar the defendant from…

IT IS NOT THAT EASY TO WITHDRAW AN ADMISSION: McWILLIAM -v- NORTON FINANCE

March 12, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Statements of Case

In McWilliam -v- Norton Finance [2015] EWCA Civ 186 the Court of Appeal made some important observations in relation to admissions and the withdrawal of admissions. THE CASE The claimant was suing the defendant for secret commissions. The defendant argued…

WITHDRAWING FROM ADMISSIONS, MISTAKES AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES

February 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

There is a report on Lawtel of the decision of Judge Bidder QC in Moore -v- Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [12/02/15].* This case demonstrates some of the difficult issues in relation to the law of withdrawing from admissions. THE…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26,758 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED
  • A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
  • A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON
  • PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”
  • AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…

Top Posts & Pages

  • A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A "DUTY OF GOOD FAITH" TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED
  • A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON
  • PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: "PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY"
  • HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin