header-logo header-logo

12 July 2007
Issue: 7281 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil litigation

White v Greensand Homes Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 643, [2007] All ER (D) 371 (Jun)

CPR 17.1(2)(b) requires that, where a party has served a statement of case (including a defence), he may amend it only with the permission of the court.  Where the effect of the amendment would be to withdraw an admission made in an earlier statement of case, the court must have regard to CPR 14.1 and the matters listed in para 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction, including the relative prejudice which will be suffered by each party if the admission is (or is not) withdrawn. 

If the admission was made in pre-action correspondence and has not been repeated following the commencement of proceedings, the question for the court is whether allowing it to be withdrawn in the party’s pleaded case would be to allow an abuse of process or be likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

The relative prejudice which would be suffered by each party if the admission is (or is not) withdrawn is a factor which the court must take into account in order to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with the case justly.

Fairness may require that a party should not be permitted to withdraw a pre-action admission which has led the other party to act to his detriment unless the detriment is insubstantial.

Issue: 7281 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll