XL CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY UK LIMITED v LINKHAM SERVICES LIMITED & Ors

XL CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY UK LIMITED v LINKHAM SERVICES LIMITED & Ors

Permission to withdraw admissions and amend the defence is refused because no explanation was provided for how the admissions were made, no evidence of new facts or legal error was adduced, and the balance of prejudice and interests of justice do not favour the seventh defendant.

Parties
Claimant: XL Catlin Insurance Company UK Limited; First Defendant: Linkham Services Limited; Second Defendant: Dominic Jirjodhan Persad; Third Defendant: Michael Jon Cranfield; Fourth Defendant: Richard John Gildea; Fifth Defendant: International Medical Rescue Limited; Sixth Defendant: International Travel and Healthcare Limited; Seventh Defendant: Newpoint Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Application for Withdrawal of Admissions and Amendment of Defence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Admissions, Knowing Receipt, Proprietary Claims, Equitable Compensation, Summary Judgment, Costs Assessment
Commercial Law Trusts Equity Withdrawal of Admissions Knowing Receipt Proprietary Claims Equitable Compensation Summary Judgment +1 more

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XL Catlin Insurance Company UK Limited

Claimant

Linkham Services Limited

First Defendant

Dominic Jirjodhan Persad

Second Defendant

Michael Jon Cranfield

Third Defendant

Richard John Gildea

Fourth Defendant

International Medical Rescue Limited

Fifth Defendant

International Travel and Healthcare Limited

Sixth Defendant

Newpoint Capital Limited

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Interlocutory Application for Withdrawal of Admissions and Amendment of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the seventh defendant be permitted to withdraw admissions and amend its defence?
  2. 2 What is the impact of lack of explanation for previous admissions?
  3. 3 How should costs be assessed following the failed application?

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to withdraw admissions and amend the defence is refused because no explanation was provided for how the admissions were made, no evidence of new facts or legal error was adduced, and the balance of prejudice and interests of justice do not favour the seventh defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • seventh defendant to pay claimant's costs of the application on the indemnity basis
  • costs to be summarily assessed