ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE BRIGGS
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
SIR STEPHEN SEDLEY
|- and -
HSBC Bank Limited
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No : 020 7404 1400 Fax No : 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Turlough Stone (instructed by DG Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Lewison:
"though verbally and contradictory to the written terms of the loan that I most would definitely not have asked to repay the loan before the rebate."
"This is the amount which I would certainly be prepared to honour so long as a sensible repayment can be agreed on the quantum."
He did not suggest that the facts alleged in the defence of the (inaudible) of the HSBC claim (?). There then followed a two-year period of intermittent negation between the parties at the end of which, on 11 December 2008, HSBC reactivated the proceedings.
"The defendant gave a long and impassioned speech about the treachery and shortcomings of the claimant, going into the history of the film finance deal, and the prospects of recovery based on the fraud of the promoters who had been endorsed by the claimant."
"7.1 An admission made under Part 14 may be withdrawn with the court's permission.
7.2 In deciding whether to give permission for an admission to be withdrawn, the court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including --
(a) the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to withdraw the admission including whether or not new evidence has come to light which was not available at the time the admission was made;
(b) the conduct of the parties, including any conduct which led the party making the admission to do so;
(c) the prejudice that may be caused to any person if the admission is withdrawn;
(d) the prejudice that may be caused to any person if the application is refused;
(e) the stage in the proceedings at which the application to withdraw is made, in particular in relation to the date or period fixed for trial;
(f) the prospects of success (if the admission is withdrawn) of the claim or part of the claim in relation to which the offer was made; and
(g) the interests of the administration of justice."
"He was, in relation to the application to withdraw admissions, fully entitled to conclude that the delay between 2006 when they were made, and 2010 when they were sought to be withdrawn, meant that the balance of prejudice or injustice militated against permitting their withdrawal. He was also fully entitled to conclude that the public interest firmly militated against permitting the revocation of the District Judge's final disposal of the admitted part of the claim. On the view which I have formed with the extremely limited circumstances (if any) in which a final order may be reviewed under Part 3.1(7), in the light of Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority, that public interest consideration was, on its own, a sufficient reason for dismissing an application."
"In my judgment – and I am certainly of this view -- nothing has changed with regard to the facts. What has changed is the appreciation, no doubt engendered by good counsel in the form of Mr Adair and, I have no doubt, a good solicitor, that he may have had a defence to the claim."
Sir Stephen Sedley:
Order: Appeal dismissed