J v A South Wales Local Authority

Permission to withdraw an admission requires consideration of all the circumstances, including the non-exhaustive factors in CPR PD 14 paragraph 7.2. A later change in the law is relevant, but does not automatically justify withdrawal. The court must assess prejudice by reference to the factual dispute created by withdrawal and must consider finality and the stability of transactions within the interests of the administration of justice. Where a public authority has acted both as defendant and as a child’s carer, and has delayed resolution in the child’s asserted best interests, it may be improper to withdraw admissions years later solely to take advantage of changed law. The risk of that change may fall on the authority which secured the delay.

J brought proceedings in the County Court at Cardiff alleging that a South Wales local authority had breached its duty by failing to remove him from his mother’s care shortly after birth and place him for adoption. The authority admitted liability in correspondence and in its Defence. Proceedings were then stayed for several years while assessment of J’s loss was deferred, in part because the authority asserted that delay was in his best interests.

Following the decisions in CN and GC v Poole BC, the authority sought to withdraw its admissions and amend its Defence to deny any relevant duty of care and, alternatively, to put breach and the factual allegations in issue. Her Honour Judge Howells permitted the withdrawal by an order dated 4 October 2019. The central issues on appeal were whether the Judge had properly assessed prejudice, the stage of proceedings, and the interests of the administration of justice under CPR PD 14 paragraph 7.2.

1. Appeal allowed. The order permitting withdrawal of the admissions and amendment of the Defence was set aside. Permission to withdraw and amend was refused, and judgment for damages to be assessed was entered for J.
2. The Judge had correctly identified the general discretion under CPR PD 14 paragraph 7.2 and the overriding objective. However, the discretion had to be exercised by considering the whole context, not merely the listed factors in isolation.
3. The Judge was entitled to treat the stage of proceedings as immaterial because the case had been stayed for years and no trial date would be disrupted. The application was made promptly after the significance of the change in law became clear.
4. Ground 2 succeeded. The Judge could not properly assess prejudice to J because withdrawal transformed the factual dispute and J had not been required to formulate a new case on the assumption that withdrawal would be allowed. The existence of undisclosed records did not justify assuming that prejudice was insubstantial.
5. Ground 1 also succeeded. The Judge failed to consider finality and the stability of closed transactions in the circumstances of this case. The admissions had spared J a liability trial and formed part of the wider management of the proceedings, including the delay imposed while the authority acted in its asserted capacity as J’s carer.
6. The change in law explained the application but did not justify it. Although common-law decisions have retrospective effect, the authority had chosen to advance J’s best interests by postponing resolution. It could not later resile from its admissions merely because the law had changed, unless withdrawal was itself in J’s interests. It was not.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the County Court order dated 4 October 2019 was allowed. The order was set aside, withdrawal and amendment were refused, and judgment for damages to be assessed was entered for J.
• County Court at Cardiff: Her Honour Judge Howells permitted the local authority to withdraw its admissions and amend its Defence.