DJ Parker, Croydon CC, 20th Mar 2013

 

Both parties brought claims in the Portal blaming one another for the accident.  Jon as defendant rejected liability, but Ullah as defendant admitted liability in the Portal claim brought against him.  Part 7 proceedings were then brought against Jon by Ullah, despite his admission of liability.  During proceedings the Portal admission came to light. Jon applied to rely on the admission and sought summary judgment.  Ullah cross applied for a declaration that they were not bound by the decision, or in the alternative that they should be allowed to resile from the admission.

 

The court held that Mr Ullah was bound by his admission of liability made in the Portal.  Summary judgment was given for Jon.

 

 

NB a different result was found in Malak v Nasim. However, in a separate appeal on which case was correct, Chimel v Chibwana & Williams, the court held that Ullah v Jon was the right decision. This confirmed the seemingly inadvertent obiter conclusion of the same point in Maddocks v Lyne.

​