0370 270 6000

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 The Defendants relied on Gale -v- Superdrug Stores Plc, arguing that an admission made by mistake could be withdrawn if there was no prejudice.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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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