header-logo header-logo

23 March 2007 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7265 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Second thoughts

In the first of two articles on the 44th update to the CPR, Nicholas Bevan considers changes to the procedures governing pre-action admissions

Preparing or defending a personal injury claim is an ongoing investigative process. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that sometimes where a party has made an admission of liability or contributory negligence they may later seek to withdraw it.

The reasons for parties changing their mind are legion. For example, an admission may be: based on incomplete evidence; induced by fraud or a genuine mistake of fact or law, perhaps offered in the confusion of the accident by one of the parties’ involved—or simply made erroneously by an inexperienced representative.

Similarly the motivations for attemp­t­­ing to withdraw an admission are many. The impetus could be no more than the desire to gain a tactical advantage or per-haps stimulated by the realisation that a claim is now much more valuable than first envisaged.

The circumstances in which a party can withdraw an admission made openly either in correspondence (prior to commencement of

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll