KDP & Anor v TXL & Ors

Permission to withdraw admissions or amend a defence is discretionary and must be assessed against all the circumstances and the overriding objective. The factors in CPR 14.5 are not hierarchical. A party who has deliberately verified a false factual case, maintained it over a substantial period, and changed position only after its forensic consequences become apparent faces a powerful case against withdrawal. The court may refuse amendments where the proposed case lacks a real prospect of success, is late or inadequately explained, would waste court resources, or would undermine the integrity of the litigation process. A litigant in person receives case-management assistance, but not a lower standard of compliance with rules, orders or the duty of truthfulness. Legal arguments already contained in the existing defence need not be repeated by amendment.

UK Insurance Ltd brought Part 20 claims to recover sums paid under approved settlements arising from fatal and personal injury road-traffic claims. The claims concerned a vehicle driven by TXL and insured by UKIL in the name of RXS. TXL and RXS had served defences which, among other matters, attributed ownership, insurance and permission to use the vehicle to RXS. After UKIL sought recovery, both applied to change their cases. RXS sought to withdraw admissions that he owned the vehicle and permitted its use. TXL sought amendments supporting a case that the vehicle belonged to his wife and that Haven Insurance or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau should bear the liability. The applications raised CPR 14.5, CPR 17.1(2), the overriding objective, prospects of success and the administration of justice. The court also considered proposed arguments concerning recovery under sections 151 and 152 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

1. Applications refused. TXL’s and RXS’s applications to withdraw admissions and amend their Part 20 defences were refused. The outstanding summary judgment applications were not determined. The parties were directed to collaborate on a draft order dealing with the decisions and directions for those applications.
2. Under CPR 14.5, the court must consider all the circumstances, including the grounds for withdrawal, new evidence, conduct, prejudice, the procedural stage, prospects of success and the interests of the administration of justice. The factors are not hierarchical. The overriding objective under CPR 1.1 requires proportionate, fair and efficient litigation. A litigant in person receives no lower standard of compliance with rules or orders.
3. RXS’s application was not based on a discovered mistake or genuinely new evidence. It involved an admitted deliberate falsification of the original verified defence, followed by a sustained change of position after he had been warned that UKIL might seek recovery from him. The prejudice was institutional as well as forensic: permitting withdrawal would weaken the reliability of statements of truth, admissions and pleaded issues. Costs would not adequately compensate UKIL.
4. Permission to amend under CPR 17.1(2) requires a case with a real or realistic prospect of success, supported by a coherent and properly evidenced factual basis. The court should not conduct a mini-trial, but it need not accept a new case at face value. The material relied upon for the revised ownership and control case was incomplete, inconclusive and contradicted by changing accounts. The applications were also late and lacked a satisfactory explanation.
5. TXL’s proposed reliance on Ian Whyte v David Arthur [2025] CSOH 47 had no realistic prospect of success because the statutory exemption considered there had been removed and no insurer had obtained a pre-accident declaration to avoid the policies. The existing pleadings already raised the relevant legal issues. Amendments seeking to describe UKIL as a volunteer, or to rely on post-accident cancellation, were unnecessary or legally hopeless. Further information about contributions between UKIL and Haven could be provided by directions rather than amendment.