Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

PI and Civil Litigation

Law - practice - procedure

Anthony Gold Solicitors , 04 NOV 2015

Philip Cavell v Transport for London [2015] EWHC 2283 (QB)

Philip Cavell v Transport for London [2015] EWHC 2283 (QB)
Public Liability – Admission of Liability

High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: William Davis J

30 July 2015

Summary
The court dismissed the defendant’s application to withdraw a pre-action admission of liability.

Detail
The claimant was injured when he fell from his bicycle due to a defect in highway. Liability was admitted on behalf of the defendant prior to commencement of proceedings.

However, by way of defence, the defendant denied liability. Permission of the court is required to withdraw an admission post-issue of proceedings pursuant to CPR, r 14.1A. The defendant applied accordingly.


Article continues below...

APIL Guide to Evidence

Offers detailed and practical advice on evidential matters

More Info from £50.00
Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online
APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents

"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus

Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online
The defendant argued that it had a strong case on liability and should not be prevented from defending the claim due to the admission, which was an error on the part of the defendant’s claims handlers. Further, if the highway was found to be defective then the defendant said it would be the responsibility of the contractor and indemnity could not be sought if the admission could not be withdrawn.

The judge saw no merit in either argument. He was not persuaded by the defendant’s inspection records, which indicated no defect when the claimant’s photographs showed a clear defect and he had mentioned uneven ground to the paramedics who treated him. Turning to the issue of indemnity, the judge found it would be necessary for the defendant to simply show a defect in order to obtain this. The claimant had volunteered his assistance in this regard so there was no issue. The application was dismissed accordingly.

Comment
The case sends a clear message to defendants that withdrawing an admission of liability will not be permitted unless there is very good reason.

Summarised by Adam Dyl, Anthony Gold Solicitors
Subscribe to our newsletters