header-logo header-logo

10 June 2020 / HHJ Karen Walden-Smith
Issue: 7890 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Covid-19
printer mail-detail

Global thinking: making a withdrawal

22349
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith outlines why the courts should take a global approach to applications to resile, while serving the interests of justice
  • Wood v Days Healthcare UK Limited: clear authority as to how the courts are to approach an application to resile from an admission of causation, with a clear shift away from holding a defendant to their admission.
  • Standing back from Wood: justifying the withdrawal of an admission under CPR rule 14.1 is not straightforward.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Wood v Days Healthcare UK Limited[2017] EWCA Civ 2097, [2017] All ER (D) 92 (Dec)gave clear authority as to how the courts are to approach an application to resile from an admission of causation. Itsignalled a clear shift away from holding a defendant to their admission. Further decisions indicate that it is the interests of the administration of justice which are paramount.

CPR 14.1B

Rule 14.1B of the CPR applies with respect to a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll