White v Greensand Homes Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 643 (28 June 2007)

White v Greensand Homes Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 643 (28 June 2007)

The judge erred in failing to critically examine the alleged prejudice to the claimant from the withdrawal of the admission, particularly regarding the speculative value of any claim against KWE Designs Limited. The balance of prejudice favored allowing BSF to withdraw its admission, as refusing would risk an unfair trial on a false basis, while any prejudice to the claimant was speculative and compensable by costs. The appeal was allowed and BSF was permitted to amend its defence, save for a paragraph seeking to strike out the claim for no reasonable cause of action.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 643
Parties
Claimant/respondent: White (for and on behalf of the members of Equity Red Star Syndicate No 0218 at Lloyds); First Defendant: Greensand Homes Ltd; Second Defendant/appellant: BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Admissions, Limitation Periods, Professional Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Construction Law Insurance Law Withdrawal of Admissions Limitation Periods Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

White (for and on behalf of the members of Equity Red Star Syndicate No 0218 at Lloyds)

Claimant/respondent

Greensand Homes Ltd

First Defendant

BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd should be permitted to withdraw an admission that it designed the foundations of the property
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to permit amendment of the defence was a proper exercise of discretion
  3. 3 What prejudice, if any, would be suffered by the parties if the admission is or is not withdrawn

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in failing to critically examine the alleged prejudice to the claimant from the withdrawal of the admission, particularly regarding the speculative value of any claim against KWE Designs Limited. The balance of prejudice favored allowing BSF to withdraw its admission, as refusing would risk an unfair trial on a false basis, while any prejudice to the claimant was speculative and compensable by costs. The appeal was allowed and BSF was permitted to amend its defence, save for a paragraph seeking to strike out the claim for no reasonable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd permitted to amend its defence to withdraw the admission that it designed the foundations, except for inclusion of paragraph 2.5 (no reasonable cause of action).