Admission of trust

I was interested to read the responses of Ian Cross and Roger Bolt to my letter of 17 May regarding resiling from admissions (see [2001] Gazette, 24 May, 17) and (see [2001] Gazette, 1 June, 14).

The tone of both letters implies that there is something dishonourable ('renege', 'cannot be trusted') in resiling from an admission, and leapt to the position that it justified high success fees in all cases.

It is well known that such a substantial change in position during the course of litigation is the exception rather than the rule.

It is not a new phenomenon and I am sure District Judges will continue to expect success fees to be assessed realistically at the time of signing the conditional fee agreements.

Nor is it behaviour unique to defendants - witness the number of cases in which the claimants end up offering to discontinue proceedings (often on the basis that the defendants 'bear their own costs').

I maintain that Ian Cross et al should abandon their attempt to assume the moral high ground on this issue - particularly in view of the fact that with the advent of after-the-event insurance to cover both parties' costs as an alternative to CFAs their paymasters will, in some cases, be the same insurance industry they consider so untrustworthy.

Rachael Simpson, DLA, Leeds