The court considered the nature of a payment into court: ‘there is nothing contractual about payment into court. It is wholly a procedural matter and has no true analogy to a settlement arranged between the parties out of court, which, of course, does constitute a contract.’ The defendant must show that good reason for his application, such as the discovery of further evidence which puts a wholly different complexion on the case or a change in legal outlook brought about by a new judicial decision. Apart from matters such as fraud or mistake affecting the original payment, the court should consider whether there is a sufficient change of circumstance since the money was paid to make it just that the defendant should have an opportunity of withdrawing or reducing his payment.
Judges:
Goddard LJ
Citations:
[1941] 2 KB 58
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flynn v Scougall CA 13-Jul-2004
The defendant had made a payment into court. She then applied to reduce the amount paid in, but the claimant accepted the original sum before that application was heard. The defendant appealed saying that their application operated as a stay.
Cited – Manku v Seehra OR 1987
The defendant had made a payment into court in the light of a joint experts meeting. In the light of the opinion of another surveyor, he sought leave to withdraw his notice of payment in. The plaintiff gave notice accepting the payment in on the . .
Approved – MRW Technologies v Cecil Holdings 22-Jun-2001
The court heard an appeal against a Master’s order which had given the defendant permission under rule 36.6(5) to withdraw a Part 36 payment.
Held: The same considerations apply to giving permission to withdraw money in court as to refusing . .
Cited – Crouch v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust CA 15-Oct-2004
The defendants sought approval of their practice of making a written offer to the claimants rather than making a payment into court. The offer had been accepted but only after the defendant had purported to withdraw it.
Held: ‘it certainly is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.199955