Sudir Shah v London Borough of Barnet

The court has a wide discretion when deciding whether to permit withdrawal of a pre-action admission. It must consider every factor in CPR Practice Direction 14.7.2, give each appropriate weight, and assess all the circumstances through the overriding objective. No factor automatically prevails.

A careful reappraisal of existing information may justify withdrawal, but the absence of genuinely new evidence remains relevant. Delay, inadequate investigation, destruction of evidence, prejudice to the other party and the administration of justice may weigh strongly against withdrawal. The court should assess prospects without conducting a mini-trial.

The claimant brought a personal injury claim against a highway authority after tripping on an uneven pavement raised by tree roots. Before proceedings, the defendant admitted liability and later made an interim payment.

After proceedings were issued, the defendant sought permission under CPR Part 14 to withdraw the admission, relying on further searches of its records, uncertainty about the precise defect and direction of travel, the value of the claim, and possible defences under sections 41 and 58 of the Highways Act 1980. The claimant applied for judgment on the admission.

The central issue was whether the defendant should be permitted to resile from the admission.

1. Discretion and applicable factors. The court had to apply CPR 14.1A and Practice Direction 14.7.2. The discretion was wide. Each specified factor had to be considered, together with all the circumstances and the overriding objective under CPR 1.1(2). The factors were not hierarchical.
2. Alleged new information. The defendant’s further searches produced information which could have been obtained before the admission. A reappraisal of existing information can be relevant, but Woodland v Stopford [2011] EWCA Civ 266 and Moore v Worcestershire NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1209 (QB) did not assist because, in those cases, the reappraisal showed that the admissions would not have resolved all liability issues. The present admission was clear and comprehensive.
3. Conduct and prejudice. The defendant’s failure to locate relevant records, inspect the correct location with the claimant’s assistance, and disclose material information before resurfacing the pavement counted against withdrawal. The claimant would suffer forensic prejudice because the physical defect had been destroyed and evidence had deteriorated. The defendant’s valuation error concerned quantum and did not materially affect liability.
4. Authorities on admissions. The reasoning in Cavell v Transport for London [2015] EWHC 2283 (QB) supported maintaining an admission made after mature professional consideration. Wood v Days Healthcare UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 2097 was distinguishable because the claim there had materially changed in character and amount. The Royal Automobile Club v Wright [2019] EWHC 913 (QB) provided stronger assistance: an admission should not readily be withdrawn where the defendant had misunderstood the value of a substantial claim and the claimant had relied on it.
5. Prospects and highway liability. The court did not conduct a mini-trial. The claimant would have to prove the accident, that the defect was a real danger arising from failure to maintain the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, and the defendant would then bear the burden of the special defence under section 58. The defendant’s prospects were not so strong as to outweigh the other factors. The principles in Mills v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] PIQR 291 and James v Preseli District Council [1993] PIQR 11 were applied.
6. Disposition. Permission to withdraw the admission was refused. Judgment was entered for the claimant on liability.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate history.