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Direction, including the relative prejudice which will be suffered by each party if the admission is (or is not) withdrawn.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not been repeated following the commencement of proceedings, the question for the court is whether allowing it to be withdrawn in the party’s pleaded case would be to allow an abuse of process or be likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

The relative prejudice which would be suffered by each party if the admission is (or is not) withdrawn is a factor which the court must take into account in order to give effect to the overriding objective to deal with the case justly.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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll