## Facts

- Veale sued Warner in the Court of King’s Bench, alleging he loaned Warner £2,000 and Warner did not repay it.
- Warner responded with a plea in bar based on prior arbitration proceedings between the parties.
- Warner alleged that arbitrators had awarded Veale £3,169, that Warner had paid Veale that amount, and that Veale had executed a general release discharging Warner from further liability.
- Veale did not deny the existence of the arbitration award; instead, he denied that Warner had paid the £3,169 and sought judgment based on the pleadings as framed.
- After pleading the award and release as an effective bar, Warner shifted position and argued the arbitration award was void, asserting that its validity did not matter even though he had pleaded payment under it.
- In response to Warner’s new argument, Veale admitted the award had been made (while continuing to dispute payment) and pressed the court to treat Warner as bound by his earlier reliance on the award and release.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who pleads an arbitration award and release as a valid bar to a debt action may later argue that the same award is void in order to avoid the consequences of the pleadings.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench refused to permit Warner to attack the arbitration award as void after he had pleaded it (and the related release) as a bar.
- Warner was treated as bound, for pleading purposes, by his reliance on the award and release; he could not “take back” their legal effect when it became inconvenient.
- As a result, the case could not be defeated by Warner’s inconsistent position; the pleadings proceeded on the footing that the award and release were not open to impeachment by Warner in that manner.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law pleading required consistency: a party could not assert a set of facts as true and legally operative, then later deny their legal force in the same action.
- A party who pleads an arbitration award and a release as a defense is not allowed, within the same case, to treat that award as void to avoid an adverse procedural result.
- Allegations used affirmatively as a bar function as binding admissions for purposes of the pleadings; a party cannot shift to an inconsistent position to change the legal frame of the dispute.
- Courts will reject pleading tactics that would make a party’s defense depend on self-contradiction and would leave the opposing party without a workable path to relief on the issues joined.

## Conclusion

Veale v. Warner holds that once Warner pleaded an arbitration award, payment, and a release as a complete bar, he could not later argue that the award was void to escape the procedural and substantive effects of his own pleading; the court enforced consistency by treating Warner as bound to the position he had chosen.


Veale v. Warner, 85 Eng. Rep. 463, 468 (1670)