BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Sowerby v Charlton [2005] EWCA Civ 1610 (21 December 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1610.html Cite as: [2006] WLR 568, [2006] 1 WLR 568, [2005] EWCA Civ 1610 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2006] 1 WLR 568] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Judge Playford QC
Master Tennant
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
Vice-President, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
and
LORD JUSTICE MAY
____________________
JANE SOWERBY |
Claimant/ Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
ELSPETH CHARLTON |
Defendant/ Appellant |
____________________
Smith Bernal WordWave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Paul Rose QC (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Brooke: This is the judgment of the court.
"Having investigated this claim the Defendant is prepared to admit a breach of duty."
They then made a proposal for settlement of the contributory negligence issue.
"(1) A party may admit the truth of the whole or any part of another party's case
(2) He may do this by giving notice in writing (such as in a statement of case or by letter."
"(5) The court may allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission."
"(1) Where a party makes an admission under rule 14.1(2) (admission by notice in writing), any other party may apply for judgment on the admission.
(2) Judgment shall be such judgment as it appears to the court that the applicant is entitled to on the admission."
"(1) In his defence, the defendant must state –
(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;
(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and
(c) which allegations he admits."
Needless to say an admission, depending on its content, may open the way for judgment to be entered on the admission under CPR Part 14.
"This protocol is primarily designed for those road traffic, tripping and slipping and accident at work cases which include an element of personal injury with a value of less than £15,000 which are likely to be allocated to the fast track. This is because time will be of the essence, after proceedings are issued, especially for the defendant, if a case is to be ready for trial within 30 weeks of allocation. Also, proportionality of work and costs to the value of what is in dispute is particularly important in lower value claims."
"Where liability is admitted, the presumption is that the defendant will be bound by this admission for all claims with a total value of up to £15,000. Where the claimant's investigation indicates that the value of the claim has increased to more than £15,000 since the letter of claim, the claimant should notify the defendant as soon as possible."
"45. From these cases and the CPR I draw the following principles.
1. In exercising its discretion the court will consider all the circumstances of the case and seek to give effect to the overriding objective.
2. Amongst the matters to be considered will be:
(a) the reasons and justification for the application which must be made in good faith;
(b) the balance of prejudice to the parties;
(c) whether any party has been the author of any prejudice they may suffer;
(d) the prospects of success of any issue arising from the withdrawal of an admission;
(e) the public interest, in avoiding where possible satellite litigation, disproportionate use of court resources and the impact of any strategic manoeuvring.
3. The nearer any application is to a final hearing the less chance of success it will have even if the party making the application can establish clear prejudice. This may be decisive if the application is shortly before the hearing."