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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll