Wyer v Hunt

[2005] ACTSC 15

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Admissions
4. › Withdrawal of admissions
5. › Principles governing leave to withdraw
6. › Whether admission made deliberately after due consideration
7. › Whether error demonstrated
8. › Whether prejudice to opposing party
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Admissions
4. › Withdrawal of admissions
5. › Admission by insurer on behalf of defendant
6. › Whether admission by experienced claims officer in different category to unrepresented litigant
7. › Whether tactical reasons for withdrawal
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Amendment of pleadings
3. › Leave to amend defence
4. › Whether contributory negligence may be raised where breach of duty admitted but liability not admitted
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs of application for leave to amend
4. › Party seeking indulgence
5. › Successful opposition on principal issue

Quick Take

An insurer's deliberate admission of breach of duty of care, made by an experienced claims officer after consideration of available material, will not be permitted to be withdrawn merely because a solicitor subsequently takes a different view of the merits. The onus is on the party seeking withdrawal to demonstrate error, not on the opposing party to demonstrate prejudice. An admission of breach of duty of care (as distinct from liability) is not inconsistent with a defence of contributory negligence.