Arboleda-Quiceno v Newham London Borough Council [2019] EWHC 2660 (QB) (31 July 2019)

Arboleda-Quiceno v Newham London Borough Council [2019] EWHC 2660 (QB) (31 July 2019)

The Deputy Master erred by conducting a detailed evaluation of the merits of the defence on the papers, rather than limiting herself to whether there was a real prospect of success. This error vitiated her decision, and a fair balancing of the factors in CPR PD 14.7.2 comes down in favour of allowing the Defendant to withdraw the admission.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2660 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Julian Arboleda-Quiceno; Defendant/appellant: Newham London Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing Permission to Withdraw Pre Action Admission of Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Admissions, Occupiers' Liability, Fundamental Dishonesty, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Withdrawal of Admissions Occupiers' Liability Fundamental Dishonesty Interlocutory 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Arboleda-Quiceno

Claimant/respondent

Newham London Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Refusing Permission to Withdraw Pre Action Admission of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in refusing permission to withdraw a pre-action admission of liability
  2. 2 Whether the claim as formulated in the Schedule of Loss was of a different size and character from that intimated in the letter of claim
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Master erred in her approach to the assessment of the prospects of success of the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master erred by conducting a detailed evaluation of the merits of the defence on the papers, rather than limiting herself to whether there was a real prospect of success. This error vitiated her decision, and a fair balancing of the factors in CPR PD 14.7.2 comes down in favour of allowing the Defendant to withdraw the admission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted for the Defendant to withdraw the pre-action admission of liability
  • If there is doubt as to the meaning or intention underlying the undertaking given by the Defendant to Andrew Baker J, the matter should be revisited by him