Woodland v Stopford & Ors

A court considering withdrawal of a pre-action admission under Civil Procedure Rules Part 14 has a wide discretion. It must consider the factors in paragraph 7.2 of the Part 14 Practice Direction, all other circumstances, and the overriding objective.

The factors have no fixed hierarchy. The absence of new evidence, or an inadequate explanation for the admission, may weigh heavily in a particular case but creates no threshold which an applicant must satisfy. The court must instead balance prejudice, the stage of proceedings, the merits, and the interests of justice. An appellate court will not interfere with that discretionary case-management decision unless there is legal error or it lies outside the generous range of reasonable decisions.

The claimant suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury during a school swimming lesson in 2000. Claims were pursued against those connected with the provision of the lesson. In 2007, claims handlers wrote that liability was conceded in full. After proceedings were issued, the Swimming Teachers Association sought permission to withdraw that pre-action admission.

His Honour Judge Holman, sitting as a Judge of the High Court in the Manchester District Registry, permitted withdrawal. He considered the factors in paragraph 7.2 of the Part 14 Practice Direction, including the parties’ conduct, prejudice caused by delay, the viability of a defence, and the interests of justice.

The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the judge had given insufficient weight to the absence of new evidence and to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the change of position.

1. Appeal dismissed. Ward LJ, with whom Arden and Moore-Bick LJJ agreed, held that the judge had been entitled to permit withdrawal of the pre-action admission.

2. Civil Procedure Rules rule 14.1A(3) confers a wide discretion. Paragraph 7.2 of the Part 14 Practice Direction requires consideration of its seven specified matters, but they are not ranked hierarchically. The court must also consider all the circumstances and strike the balance consistently with the overriding objective.

3. The absence of new evidence does not prevent withdrawal. It is a relevant consideration, as is the adequacy of the explanation for the admission and the later change of position. The observations in American Reliable Insurance Company v Willis Ltd [2008] EWHC 2677 (Com), concerning a formidable threshold difficulty, arose from unusual litigation and could not be elevated into a general threshold test.

4. The judge had considered the absence of new evidence, the defendant’s unexplained conduct and its earlier assurance that it would not go behind the admission. He had also fairly considered the claimant’s prejudice from delay, the defendant’s prejudice if deprived of a merits defence, the early procedural stage, the arguable defence on breach, causation and vicarious liability, and the administration of justice. His conclusion that the balance narrowly favoured withdrawal was within the range of reasonable decisions.

5. An appellate court may interfere with a discretionary case-management decision only where the judge considered an immaterial matter, omitted a material matter, erred in principle, or exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable judges may differ. None of those grounds was made out.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Woodland v Stopford & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 266. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry: His Honour Judge Holman permitted the defendant to withdraw its pre-action admission of liability.