16. Where a party seeks to withdraw an admission, a further matter arises for consideration. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a court is entitled to assume that counsel who makes an admission in the course of the conduct of the trial has satisfied himself or herself that the admission was, on the client's version of the facts, a proper admission to make: Langdale v Danby (1982) 1 WLR 1123 per Lord Bridge of Harwich at 1134. Their Honours in Celestino expressed the opinion that a court, and other parties to litigation, are similarly entitled to make that assumption about admissions made by solicitors on their clients' behalf in the course of litigation whether in pleadings or in correspondence, and that where leave is sought to withdraw an admission, a court will require an explanation for the making of the admission, which must be a sensible one based on evidence of a solid and substantial character (at para 12). On the facts in Celestino, the trial judge had correctly refused leave to withdraw the admission on the ground that no sufficient explanation had been given about the circumstances which led to it being made, or the later decision to seek to withdraw it (para 13).