We are pleased to report a significant victory in the County Court at Edmonton, where a fast track personal injury claim was dismissed in its entirety after we successfully challenged the claimant’s attempt to rely partially on a pre-action protocol (PAP) admission of liability.
Summary of the case
We acted for the defendant, whose insurer (Direct Line) had previously made a 50% admission of liability on the Official Injury Claims (OIC) Portal under the RTA Small Claims Protocol.
Crucially, when the claimant subsequently issued proceedings, they relied upon this 50% admission in their particulars of claim (POC), while simultaneously arguing that the defendant was 100% at fault for the remaining 50% of the liability.
The successful legal argument
The claimant’s pleading was fundamentally flawed. We successfully argued that the claimant's approach was legally misconceived and contrary to the clear operation of the RTA Small Claims Protocol.
Specifically, we referred the court to Paragraph 6.8(2)(a) of the PAP, which governs the claimant's response to an admission of liability in part:
- Acceptance: The claimant can accept the partial admission (e.g. 50%) and issue proceedings solely to assess quantum (value) of the claim.
- Rejection: The claimant can reject the partial admission and issue proceedings to establish full (100%) liability based on the evidence.
As counsel argued, the claimant cannot do both: they cannot treat the 50% admission as an irreversible concession while simultaneously seeking to litigate and recover the outstanding 50%. The Protocol admission operates like an offer - it must be either accepted or rejected as a whole when electing to proceed to litigation. By arguing for 100% liability, the claimant effectively rejected the 50% offer.
The outcome
Deputy District Judge Hillam accepted our submission that the claimant’s pleading was nonsensical and that the protocol admission should not have featured in the pleadings in that manner. Based on the evidence heard at trial (where the court preferred the testimony of our defendant), the claim was dismissed in full. The claimant was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs (subject to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting).
Key takeaways
This decision provides welcome clarification:
- Pleadings must be clear: This reinforces the necessity for claimants to correctly frame their litigation strategy in response to pre-action protocol admissions. They cannot "bank" a partial admission while litigating for a better outcome on liability.
- The admission is not a concession in litigation: If a claimant wishes to argue 100% liability, the partial admission is superseded, forcing them to prove their case on the merits alone.
This outcome is a powerful reminder that robust defence strategies and challenging technical pleading points can lead to the complete dismissal of claims, even where a partial admission was once made.
For more information or advice, please contact a member of our Vehicle Hire and Damage Team.
