0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Sollitt v D.J. Broady Ltd

2 November 2001
The issues

Gale -v- Superdrug – admissions – attempts to resile from admissions.

The facts

The Claimant in 1994 was injured when he was hit by the bucket of an excavator owned by the First Defendant DJ Brody Limited. They denied liability. The Defence admitted the accident and employment, but neither denied nor admitted negligence, causation and loss and damage. Subsequently, by letter the Solicitors admitted liability. Subsequently, statements were prepared and exchanged. As a result of those investigations, an application was made for DJ Brody Limited to be replaced by TD Brody Investments Limited as Defendant. The Application was refused. The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. In law liability lay with the Second Defendant TD Brody Investments.

2. The Solicitors made the admission of liability following instructions from Insurers and therefore were authorised to make that admission. If they did not have actual authority, they had ostensible authority.

3. The Defendants relied on Gale -v- Superdrug Stores Plc, arguing that an admission made by mistake could be withdrawn if there was no prejudice. That decision lay down valuable guidance as to how a discretion was to be exercised, but no principle of law was laid down. However, it was right that there was a need to look at the prejudice which each party suffered. Bearing in mind the respective prejudices as against Claimant and Defendant, and whilst the Judge below had not performed a balancing exercise, it was clear that had he done so, he would have come to the same conclusion.

Appeal dismissed

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up