ADMISSIONS: Ignoring Facts like Sharks will Bite you
- Jan 29
- 14 min read
Updated: Feb 12
CASE SUCCESS: IBRAHIM YAKUB PATEL -v- ESURE INSURANCE SERVICES
WE ACTED FOR A POLICYHOLDER ACCUSED OF FRAUD BY THEIR OWN INSURER. THAT INSURER IS NOW BOUND BY AN ADMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THEIR INSULTED POLICYHOLDER AND REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY.
This article beings with a concise synopsis before considering what amounts to 'an Admission' in the context of civil litigation. We then examine the consequences of making an Admission and how a party may resile from one. The article concludes with an analysis of the interlocutory-judgement.
Nothing in this article relates to an Admission in criminal law/criminal proceedings which are entirely different.
KEY FACTS / SYNOPSIS
Please click and expand for a concise synopsis of the legal issues:
WHAT IS AN ADMISSION?
There is no single legal definition as to what amounts to ‘an Admission.’ The evidential weight and legal consequences attached to a written/formal admission are distinct from the oral/informal admissions.
Formal Admissions (i.e. in writing): These are governed by CPR Part 14. This defines 'an Admission' generally as an acknowledgement in the form of a statement that a fact, part or whole of another party’s case is true. Consequently, there are 3 formal types of an Admission:
An Admission on the whole or part of another party’s case by giving written notice before the commencement of proceedings. (CPR r.14.1(1)).
An Admission on the whole or part of another party’s case by notice in writing, after the commencement of proceedings. (CPR r.14.2(1)).
Pre-action Admissions in certain pre-action protocol cases (CPR r.14.3).
CPR r.14.1 Admissions Made Before Commencement of Proceedings:
(1) A person may, by notice in writing -
(a) Admit the whole or any part of another party's case before commencement of proceedings.
(b) Withdraw a pre-action admissions before commencement of proceedings, if the person to whom the admission made agrees.
(2) After Commencement of Proceedings:
(a) Any party may apply to court for judgement on the pre-action admissions; and
(b) The maker of the pre-action admission may apply to the court for permission to withdraw it.
Informal Admissions (I.e. not in writing): These may be admissible as evidence but may not be treated as an Admission for the purposes (CPR r.14.2.3). Essentially, they are a statement that should be noted by the party seeking reliance and proved in the usual way.
HOW ARE ADMISSIONS MADE?
An Admission may be in writing and at any point prior to or during civil proceedings.
A Defence is required to admit facts that are true.
A Witness Statement sets out a factual chronology and can contain admissions.
A Reply to Notice to Admit Facts will list the facts admitted.
Inter-Party Correspondence, a party can write to another the facts they admit and those they dispute.
Orally, a person simply has to speak the words and be heard to say them by a witness.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING AN ADMISSION?
Firstly, admitting that a fact, part or whole of a party’s case is true simply means, the parties agree that it is true and so they do not have to incur the cost/waste money arguing/proving it at trial.
CPR r.14.2 Admissions made after commencement of proceedings: -
(1). After commencement of proceedings, a party may admit, by notice in writing, the whole or any part of another party’s claim or case.
(2) Where the claim is for money only, the defendant may admit, by notice in writing-
(a) the whole or part of the claim for a specified amount;
(b). The whole or part of the claim for an unspecified amount; or
(c). Liability for an unspecified amount.
Secondly, where a Defendant admits a liability I.e. a legally enforceable obligation, the claimant may request the court enter judgement:
CPR r.14.2(4) Where a Defendant -
(A) admits liability to pay the whole of or part of claim for a specified sum of money;
(B) admits liability to pay the whole of a club for an unspecified amount of money; or
(C) admits liability to pay a claim for an unspecified amount of money and offers a sum of satisfaction of the claim, the claimant may file a request for judgement.
CAN YOU WITHDRAW/RESILE FROM AN ADMISSION?
An admission made prior to issuing proceedings can be withdrawn providing the person to whom it was made agrees (CPR r.14.1.(1)(b)). Thereafter, an admission can only be withdrawn with the permission of the court (CPR r.14.1(2)(b). This requries a formal application under CPR Part 23 and consideration of the factors listed in CPR r.14.5.
CPR r.14.5: - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION-
In deciding whether to give permission for an admission to be withdrawn, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case, including -
(a) the grounds for seeking to withdraw the admission;
(b) whether there is new evidence that was not available when the admission was made;
(c) the conduct of the parties;
(d) any prejudice to any person if the admission is withdrawn or nor permitted to be withdrawn;
(e) what stage the proceedings have reached; in particular whether a date or period has been fixed for the trial;
(f) the prospects of success of the claim or of the part of it to which the admission relates; and
(g) the interests of the administration of justice.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING AN ADMISSION
The Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) encourages the parties in litigation to settle their disputes amicably and without the need for lengthy and expensive court resources. Justice & Proportionality, will inevitably necessitate the making of sensible admissions so as to:
Proof: When a fact is admitted or agreed neither party needs to incur time and money proving it in court. That admitted/agreed fact simply forms part of the background tapestry of the case.
Judgement: An admission can be used to obtain judgement, but that is not the same as saying the Defendant must pay the claimed sum in full.
Costs: Should an admission be made in 'the Reply to a Notice to Admit’ then a cost penalty can be avoided.
An Admission should be considered, clear and express; especially when paired with the word ‘NOT.’ This ignition of revolution, 1 syllable sound of rebuke when recklessly colliding with the reality of litigation in the context of an Admission can destitute commercial enterprises:
Tinkler -v- Esken Ltd (Formerly Stobart Group Ltd): A deposed [former] Company Director candidly admitted that his conspiracy claim against his former colleagues was parasitic upon his case of fraud succeeding against them. After he lost the latter case, the court refused him permission to resile from his previous admission on law. Consequently, the conspiracy case was killed at the outset by the claimant’s own admission.
Cavell -v- Transport for London: “Highly Competent Professional Advisors” (as some judges describe some solicitors) to Transport for London, could not explain or recall why they had admitted liability for a series of potholes they could not find in London. Especially as the maintenance records indicated nothing untoward. The court refused permission to resile/withdraw from the admission.
Ibrahim Yakub Patel -v- Esure Insurance Services: An insurer accused its own policyholder of >£60’000 fraud. However, prior to attacking their own policyholder the insurer had 'forgotten' to apply to resile from an absolute admission on liability made on their policyholders behalf. The insurer was subsequently bound to the policyholder it had been attacking.
In all these cases, had the word 'NOT' preceeded the word 'admit' a fortune could have been saved.
HOW & WHEN TO MAKE AN ADMISSION?
If what your opponent alleges is true or is likely to be, then on balance they are going to prove that in court. When your opponent proves a fact in court that you denied, this adds to your opponent’s credibility and detracts from your own. At the end of the trial, the party that proved the most facts in support of its case will cry ‘Vae Victus’.
To avoid the aforementioned embarrassment, you can admit/agree a fact in advance of trial then it cannot be used against you. That agreed/admitted fact now forms part of the background tapestry to the case and money will not be lost/wasted arguing over it. To make such an Admission:
Pre-Action: CPR r.14.1 provides that a person may by giving notice in writing, admit the truth of the whole or any part of another party’s case before commencement of proceedings. Prior to issuing proceedings the parties are required to engage in pre-litigated correspondence to narrow the scope of dispute and resulting time, public resources and costs. It is expected that when the parties put their respective competing facts that concessions should reasonably follow to give affect to the negotiations.
Defences: In response to the Particulars of Claim the Defence is required to confirm which of the allegations they admit, which of the allegations they deny and those that they require the claimant to prove at trial i.e. those they can neither admit nor deny for want of knowledge? A Defendant whom denies ‘practically’ everything will be maximising their opponents legal costs which, they might ultimately be liable for should the Defence fail. Under English law, the default is always that the loser pays the victors costs.
Admissions at Hearings: Admissions made by solicitors or barristers during court hearings are held to be conclusive for the purposes of dispensing with proof at trial. However, an accidental admission is usually treated as evidence and should be proved in the usual way (Hodge M. Male, Phipson on Evidence (Sweet & Maxwell, 20th edition, 2022), Chapter 4: Admissions: Informal Admissions - Client, Solicitor, Counsel and Witnesses.)
By Notice/Invitation: You can always invite your opponent to admit a fact or legal issue by serving a ‘Notice to Admit’ / Form N266 pursuant to CPR r.32.18 which must be served at least 21 days prior to trial. In the event that you opponent refuses to admit the facts that are then proven true additional money will likely be paid to you in legal costs.
Conduct: A party can be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document by simply failing to challenge it by the required deadline.
DEEMED ADMISSIONS OF AUTHENTICITY?
Pursuant to CPR r.32.19, a party is deemed to admit the authenticity of a document unless it serves notice that it require that document to be proved at trial. There is a deadline for challenging the authenticity of a document which at the lasted is service of witness statements or within 7 days of disclose of the document. Whichever is later.
PARTIAL ADMISSIONS & ALLOCATION
Pursuant to CPR r.14.1(1)(a) and CPR r.14.2(1) a party may admit the truth of a whole or any part of another party’s case. What that means in the context of a e.g. a debt claim; is a Defendant may admit some of the debt but challenge other invoices or in the case of an RTA, a Defendant may admit the cars collided but deny that the other mini had 25 passengers.
Akhtar -v- Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872: the Court of Appeal held that the judge had been right at first instance to deduct the sums admitted when considering allocation. Arising from this appeal, Sir Stanley Burton set out what he described as the “commonplace propositions” concerning admissions and interlocutory judgements:
A party that admits a fact should not later seek to adduce evidence or argue that the admission is not binding on them.
The court has no jurisdiction to investigate a fact that has been admitted, unless the party whom made the admission obtains permission to resile.
Where a Defendant admits part but not the whole of the claim for unliquidated damages, the claimant is entitled to judgement on that admission and to obtain judgement on the balance. Such a judgement does not extinguish the Claimant’s cause of action.
In extreme cases where the Defence is littered with partial admissions, the court may make an Order for clarification or on its own accord, strike out the Defence.
I ADMIT NOTHING!
The following have been held ‘NOT’ to be admissions:
Informal Admissions I.e. oral statements/admissions. These are treated as evidence. Section 7(1) Civil Evidence Act 1995 provides that an informal admission will not be excluded from evidence on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. Rather, its significance rests entirely on whether notice was given to the other side pursuant to the provisions of CEA 95.
Admissions from a different Case with same parties but where the previous Admission were not placed before the court. These cannot be subsequently relied upon in the 2nd proceedings as ‘Admissions’. (British Thomson Houston Co -v- B I & Helsby [1924] 2 Ch. 160)
Admissions from a different Case & Defence but with the same parties: (Re WALTERS (1889) 61 l.t. 872).
Unauthorised Admissions: Woe to the faithless employee, English law is based on ‘property rights’ or ‘authority.’ When an employee or servant of a company makes an admission on behalf of the corporate entity the affect of that admission will depend on the authority of the employee. An admission made by the company’s directors or their solicitors will almost certainly bind the company. However, an ‘ordinary employee’ i.e. one without the authority of the directors to make such an admission will not be able to make an admission and will likely have just violated their contract of employment.
Unclear/Clever Admissions: An admission may be express in writing or implied by conduct but it must be clear. Accepting part of the claimant’s claim for the purpose of settling the whole action not be constructed as an admission accordingly (The Dorchester Group Ltd t/a the Dorchester Collection) -v- Kier Construction Ltd [2015] EWHC 3051 (TCC)
'Benighted Admissions: (NB Our term): Admitting something without knowledge of the underlying facts has little to no evidential value. (Comptroller of Customs -v- Wester Lectric Co Ltd [1966] AC 367).
Equally, admissions made as to legal issues without understanding the law e.g. ‘who owed whom a duty of care’ are unlikely to be relevant or hold any evidential value (Ashmore -v- Corporation of Lloyd’s [1992] 1 WRL 446).
RESILING/WITHDRAWING FROM AN ADMISSION PRE-ACTION
An admission made prior to issuing proceedings can be withdrawn providing the person to whom it was made agrees (CPR r.14.1.(1)(b)). Thereafter, an admission can only be withdrawn with the permission of the court (CPR r.14.1(2)(b).
IBRAHIM YAKUB PATEL -v- ESURE INSURANCE SERVICES
Meade Law Solicitors Ltd acting for the Claimant instructed ourselves/RLS to represent the successful Claimant.
The Facts
An alleged RTA, ESURE the Defendant insurance company suspected their policyholder of committing fraud and sought to withdraw indemnity.
ESURE firstly pre-litigated wrote to the Claimant’s Solicitors to state liability was NOT Admitted as they suspected their policyholder of dishonesty. However;
Three months subsequently, ESURE sent notice to the same Claimant's Solicitors that ‘Liability is Admitted in Full.’ Then;
ESURE seemingly transferred the matter to their dedicated SIU squad, whom instructed solicitors to enter a Defence accusing their policyholder of having staged an RTA. And;
Served with the Defendence, ESURE relied upon the report of an expert engineer Mr Kang whom had inspected both vehicles. Mr Kang concluded among other things, that the the cars involved could not have come into contact as alleged. ESURE’s insured vehicle was not even roadworthy at the time of the alleged RTA. But;
ESURE never applied to withdraw/resile from their admission and instead sought to carry the case on as if they were a neutral passenger to a prosecution.
The court was not impressed and suggested ESURE apply to resile from their admission if they were serious about conducting their case to trial. That they did 2.5 weeks later.
That application was refused and the insurer bound to a policyholder it was submitting evidence against.
The Law
CPR r.14.5 Application for Permission to Withdraw Admission:
In deciding whether to give permission for an admission to be withdrawn, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case, including -
the grounds for seeking to withdraw the admission;
Whether there is new evidence that was not available when the admission was made;
The conduct of the parties;
Any prejudice to any person if the admission is withdrawn or not permitted to be withdrawn;
What stage the proceedings have reached; in particular, whether a date or period has been fixed fro the trial;
The prospects of success of the claim or of the part of it to which the admission relates and
The interests of the administration of justice.
In Tutt -v- Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 2835 (KB) Pearce J summarised the applicable principles pursuant to the CPR October 2023 update and the new CPR r.14.5:
The factors listed in CPR r.14.5 are not hierarchical. The court must have regard to each and every one of them, giving them due weight in the particular circumstances of the case and balancing those matters so as to strike a result which accords with the overriding objective. Woodland v Stopford [2011] EWCA Civ 266
An application to withdraw an admission is not barred by the fact that the error is on the initial assessment of liability rather than the application is being made not he basis of new evidence or material becoming available (Woodland v Stopford).
The court should be given a full and frank explanation of the circumstances in which the admissions as made and the basis upon which it is sought to be withdrawn (Woodland v Stopford).
Where the change of position of a party who has made the admission arsis from a reassessment of material that was previously available to it, the overriding objective may favour the refusal of permission to withdraw the admission. I.e. if a party though it had a stronger hand than it did and did not need to admit, the court will likely bind the reckless party to the admission.
When reflecting on the prospects of success, the court should not engage in too close an examination of the merits of the Defence, not should it conduct some kind of trial on the papers.
Judgement
DJ Iyer having paid careful attention to the facts of the case did consider that the admission from the insurer was most likely a mistake. However, having considered the factors listed in CPR r.14.5, explicitly placing them in no strict hierarchy, concluded that the law was against allowing the Defendant permission to resile as a fair trial could not take place:
There had been no NEW evidence adduced by the Defendant. The engineering report of Mr Kang had been made prior to the mistaken admission.
There was no good explanation as to why the admission had not just been withdrawn pre-litigation when permission of the court was not required.
The Prejudice to the Claimant meant that a fair trial could no longer take place. Specifically:
The vehicles Mr Kang had inspected were unlikely to be available for inspection and certainly not in the same condition. The Defendant would thus be armed with an engineering report and the Claimant would have nothing.
The Engineering Report from Mr Kang was not conclusive. While Mr Kang had addressed whether the 2 vehicles involved in the index accident had come into contact with each other, he had overlooked the previous car accidents the Claimant had.
There was no evidence before the court of the ‘extensive claim history’ of the Claimant. What the court had was a suspicion of fraud, not conclusive evidence of any past, present or future dishonesty.
The Defendant could STILL protect its interests: An Admission is NOT a Judgement. What the insurer had admitted was ‘a liability’ to pay some damage. The Claimant would still have to attend court and convince the judge that he was injured in the manner alleged and if he wanted to claim for his vehicle damage and the hire of a replacement car, he would need to convince a judge as to the veracity of his case. The Claimant could still go to trial and walk away with £0.00 despite his opponent admitting liability in full.
What this decision meant in practice is that:
The Claimant would no longer have to waste time and money proving that the he was involved in a genuine RTA.
The Defendant could still cross-examine the Claimant at trial as to the extent of his injuries. Should the presiding judge be satisifed that there was in fact no underlying injury to compensate, that there was nio need to hire a replacement vehicle, then the Claimant would recover £0.00.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Not covered in this article but which should always be considered in practice:
Negotiations: If the parties wish to have a free ‘without prejudice’ discussion as encouraged by law, they should be clear at the outset whether they intend to be bound by an admission made in those negotiations.
Conditions: The court can attach conditions to a party seeking to resile from an admission.
Protocols: CPR r.14.3 concerns the withdrawal of prediction admissions in cases concerning Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs), Employers Liability (EL) and Public Liability (PL) cases.
CONCLUSION
There are 3 considerations concerning theb making an admission either prior to, or during legal proceedings:
Admitting a fact that is going to be proven at trial costs you nothing, deprives your opponent of ammunition and will allow you to re-establish control of the narrative.
Making a clever admission that nobody fully understands will cost you time and money correcting peoples mistakes and just by having to re-explain yourself over and over again.
Making absolutely no admissions and then losing at trial can bankrupt you. That being said, should you wish to run the risk, please see the contact form below.
CASE INDEX
Order of cases and citations in approximate order of appearence:
Ibrahum Yakub Patel -v- ESURE Insurance Services (Mancester CC unreported 26/01/26)
Tinkler -v- Esken ltd (Formerly Stobart Group Ltd) [2024] EWHC 1490 (Ch)
Cavell -v- Transport for London
Akhtar -v- Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872:
British Thomson Houston CO -v- B I Helsby: [1924] 2 Ch. 160
Re WALTERS (1889) 61 L.T. 872)/
The Dorchester Group Ltd t/a the Dorchester Collection -v- Kier Construction Ltd [2015] EWHC 3051 (TCC)
Comptroller of Customs -v- Western Lectric Co Ltd [1966] AC 367
Ashmore -v- Corporation of Lloyd's [1992] 1 WRL 446
Tutt -v- Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 2835 (KB).
Woodland -v- Stopford [2011] EWCA Civ 266
Exclusion: The comments and opinions expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and not any other party.
