Lufthansa Technik AG

The court has a wide discretion to permit withdrawal of an admission. The decision turns on all the circumstances, and an adequate explanation is not a threshold condition. Particular weight may be given to prejudice caused by withdrawal, including loss of limitation protection and the procedural burden of investigating claims that the admission had removed from issue. That prejudice must be assessed by comparing the position with the admission in place against the position after withdrawal, rather than against the position the party would have occupied if the admission had never been made. The prospects of the proposed defence remain relevant, but a seriously arguable point will not necessarily justify withdrawal where the admission was made voluntarily, the application is late, and withdrawal would undermine the efficient conduct of litigation.

Lufthansa Technik AG brought patent infringement proceedings against Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems, Safran Seats GB Ltd and Panasonic Avionics Corporation. Shortly before the technical trial, the defendants sought permission to withdraw an admission that Astronics was responsible for supplying goods into the United Kingdom. They argued that title had passed to purchasers in the United States and that Astronics therefore had an arguable defence. The claimant relied on limitation prejudice, the need to investigate possible claims against UK recipients, and the late procedural stage. The central issue was whether the admission should be withdrawn under the applicable admissions regime.

1. Application refused. The defendants were not permitted to withdraw the admission concerning Astronics’ responsibility for the relevant supplies. The admission relating to claim 7 was permitted to be withdrawn because it was a minor point and it would be artificial to proceed on an admitted basis where the evidence indicated that Safran did not perform the relevant act.
2. Under paragraph 7.2 of Practice Direction 14 and CPR 14.1(5), the court has a wide discretion. Each case turns on its facts, all the circumstances must be considered, and the adequacy of the explanation for withdrawal is relevant but not a threshold condition.
3. Prejudice is assessed by comparing the claimant’s position with the admission standing against its position if the admission is withdrawn. Withdrawal would expose the claimant to possible loss of more than two years’ damages through limitation and would require investigation and possible proceedings against 16 UK recipients.
4. The admissions regime supports efficient, cooperative, cards-on-the-table litigation. An admission removes the admitted matter from issue. Withdrawal may cause both substantive and procedural prejudice. That prejudice must be balanced against prejudice to the applicant and the prospects of the proposed case.
5. The proposed defence had a real prospect of success.