Sollitt v D J Broady Ltd. [2000] EWCA Civ 450 (23 February 2000)

Sollitt v D J Broady Ltd. [2000] EWCA Civ 450 (23 February 2000)

The Court held that the solicitors had actual or ostensible authority to make admissions on behalf of D J Broady Limited, and that the prejudice to the claimant from allowing withdrawal of admissions outweighed the prejudice to the defendant, which was of its own making. The Recorder's refusal to allow withdrawal of admissions was upheld, as the claimant lost the opportunity to protect his interests due to the defendant's conduct.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 450
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Keith Thomas Sollitt; First Defendant/appellant: D J Broady Limited; Second Defendant: TD Broady Investments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment Refusing Permission to Withdraw Admissions and Holding Defendants Jointly and Severally Liable
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Admissions, Authority of Solicitors, Mistaken Identity of Defendant, Joint and Several Liability, Prejudice in Procedural Applications
Civil Procedure Tort Law Company Law Withdrawal of Admissions Authority of Solicitors Mistaken Identity of Defendant Joint and Several Liability Prejudice in Procedural Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Thomas Sollitt

Claimant/respondent

D J Broady Limited

First Defendant/appellant

TD Broady Investments Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment Refusing Permission to Withdraw Admissions and Holding Defendants Jointly and Severally Liable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw admissions of fact and liability made by mistake
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors had actual or ostensible authority to make admissions on behalf of the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would be prejudiced by allowing withdrawal of admissions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the solicitors had actual or ostensible authority to make admissions on behalf of D J Broady Limited, and that the prejudice to the claimant from allowing withdrawal of admissions outweighed the prejudice to the defendant, which was of its own making. The Recorder's refusal to allow withdrawal of admissions was upheld, as the claimant lost the opportunity to protect his interests due to the defendant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent to have costs of the appeal
  • Order on the stay to remain undisturbed