Beware pre-action admissions: Lessons from Industrial Maintenance Engineers (IME Contracts) v Webster Miller Limited [2026] EWHC 393 (Comm)

Introduction 

Pre-action Admissions for or on behalf of insurers are generally useful when correctly deployed to save costs. However, a recent case illustrated that insurers cannot always resile from a pre- action admission made on their behalf. 

This decision deals with an application for summary judgment where there is an apparent pre-action admission said to be binding on the defendant. The two issues to be decided were whether the pre-action admission was binding, and if so, should the defendant be permitted to withdraw the admission? It was decided that the admission of liability was binding. Permission to withdraw the admission was refused by the court and summary judgment was granted. 

Background

In December 2021, the defendant’s driver caused damage when unloading within the claimant’s warehouse. The defendant’s insurer GLI was notified of the claim by the broker and GLI instructed loss adjusters on the claim (‘Artemis’) under the conduct of defence provision (“CoD”) which provided:

"No admission, offer, promise, payment or indemnity shall be made or given by or on "your" behalf without "our" previous consent in writing. "We" shall be entitled if "we" so desire to take over and conduct in "your" name defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute in "your" name for "our" own benefit any claim for indemnity or damage or otherwise and shall have full control and discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim and "you" shall give all information and assistance as "we" may require and shall not act in any way to "our" detriment or prejudice "our" interests."

Following an exchange where the claimant was offered a without prejudice settlement offer (which was rejected), on 5 January 2022 Artemis sent an email to the claimant “to confirm the insurer has advised that liability is accepted...” On 17 March 2022, GLI then made an interim payment of £173,500 without any reservation of rights and on 5 April 2022 declined to indemnify the defendant.

The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant pleading that the defendant was bound by the admission under CPR14.1(a) which states: “A person may, by notice in writing admit the whole or any part of another party’s case before commencement of proceedings (a “pre-action admission”)” and that Artemis were acting within the scope of their authority.

The claimant issued an application for summary judgment against the defendant in September 2025 and in October 2025 the defendant issued an application to withdraw its admission. The defendant also issued an additional claim under CPR Part 20 against GLI which was settled on confidential terms.

Admission of liability

It was decided that the 5 January 2022 email above amounted to an admission of liability when approaching the interpretation objectively using the ordinary/natural meaning, and that a reasonably informed reader could understand the email to be one acknowledging liability. 

The claimant argued that Artemis were acting within the scope of their authority when admitting liability on behalf of the insurer. The defendant strongly refuted this and submitted that the admission was not binding because Artemis were not acting for the defendant, nor did the person making the admission at Artemis have authority to bind the defendant. 

However, ultimately it was decided that the CoD allowed GLI to deal with the defendant’s defence and as the defendant’s agent, the right of which was exercised when GLI took over the claim and passed its management to Artemis on 5 December 2021. Therefore, any decision made by Artemis was binding on GLI and the defendant. 

Withdrawal

The previous position was that pre-action admissions could be withdrawn without the court’s permission. What then happens where the statement is made when the old rules were operational? Which version of CPR Part 14 applies?

Bird J provided clarity on this determining that there is a retrospective effect “unless there is a clear indication that was not the intention of the legislature”. Moreover, in this situation the right to withdraw an admission is procedural not substantive, so therefore the new version is applicable and it was decided “the impact of retrospectivity is not so unfair that retrospectivity cannot have been intended”. 

Permission to withdraw was refused. When considering unfairness, it was found there was no unfairness as a settlement had already been reached between GLI and the defendant. The prejudice suffered by the defendant was identified as GLI’s subsequent decision to refuse cover and the operation of the CoD which meant that the admission is treated as being made by the defendant, but ultimately it was the “contractual bargain to which the defendant agreed”. 

Conclusion and takeaway

This decision highlights the impact of insurer led admissions and the importance of parties to properly understand and consider the operation of a conduct of defence provision under an insurance policy, which if validly executed can have a binding effect on the insured. 

The decision also demonstrates the approach taken by the courts to CPR Part 14 under the post-October 2023 changes regarding pre-action admissions which previously parties could withdraw without permission. 

Insurers would be well advised to review their procedures for monitoring this, especially when putting matters out early to adjusters and seek legal advice on matters where appropriate: as always, a small investment upfront, can make a big saving in due course.