‘A disputed adjudicator’s decision is unenforceable due to apparent bias, according to the High Court in England, after privileged communications were wrongly deemed admissible as evidence during the proceedings.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th October 2023
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘I advise many clients involved in construction projects who are on the cusp of a dispute. While they take legal advice on the merits of their position, my clients usually continue to seek to reach an amicable solution with their counterparty through direct negotiation as well as continuing to liaise on a day to day basis to get the job finished. In this context, my clients regularly ask, “Should my email be without prejudice?”. Although the law in this area is relatively settled, the question continues to throw up difficulties. I have been involved with several cases where one party has attempted to put material before a judge or adjudicator that the other side says is inadmissible because it was made without prejudice. The recent Privy Council case of A&A v Petroleum Co of Trinidad & Tobago sheds some light on this perennial problem.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 7th February 2023
‘Do Defendants have a right to see unredacted settlement agreements which have privileged communications in them? The case of BGC Broker LP (above) addresses this.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 17th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘Reservations have been expressed about plans to change the rules for determining costs at the end of family proceedings.’
Law Society's Gazette, 5th November 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘There is no rule that communications treated as “without prejudice” despite not being labelled as such cannot be referred to when considering costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 12th September 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘An offer to settle a case for no damages but an admission of liability was a valid part 36 offer and it was not unjust to apply the usual consequences of beating an offer when the claimant won at trial, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 28th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) wrongly took into account a “without prejudice” offer when deciding on the costs of a case when there was no reason to believe that it was “save as to costs”, the Upper Tribunal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A judge was wrong to make a costs order after viewing ‘without prejudice’ material relating to settlement discussions that was not marked “save as to costs”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 9th July 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A litigant in person (LiP) who disclosed a ‘without prejudice’ offer during trial had been warned not to and the judge was right to sanction him, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 5th November 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘That mediation proceedings are confidential is taken as axiomatic. What is said and done in the course of a mediation remains there. The same goes for documents of whatever kind, and their contents, created for the purposes of the mediation. In the above case Master Howarth appears to have qualified these propositions to some extent.’
Garden Court Chambers, 31st January 2017
Source: www.gardencourtmediation.co.uk
‘Madeleine Reardon, barrister of 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the role of mediation in the course of family proceedings, practical issues arising therefrom and, in particular, confidentiality of the mediation process.’
Family Law Week, 27th October 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The High Court has ruled that a claimant’s part 36 offer was a counter-offer, meaning that an earlier common law offer by the defendants no longer remained open for acceptance.’
Litigation futures, 15th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016 [EWHC] 1614 (Ch)
‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’
WLR Daily, 4th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The ‘without prejudice’ privilege refers to the inadmissibility of any party communications targeted toward settlement. The objective of this privilege is to encourage parties engaging in settlement consideration, by ensuring any information disclosed in the pursuit of settlement cannot be submitted in litigation proceedings (see Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tomkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280).’
Law Society’s Gazette, 15th February 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Litigants in person (LiPs) can benefit from the ‘without prejudice’ rule even if they do not know what it means, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and another: [2014] EWHC 3322 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 424
‘Communications made at a time when there was no dispute could not, with retrospective effect, be made subject to the without prejudice privilege by subsequently rasing a dispute.
WLR Daily, 10th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When a litigator enters into settlement discussions, the general rule is that the content of those communications are protected by the Without Prejudice Rule and cannot be relied upon as evidence in court if the case doesn’t settle. This rule, however, does not constitute a blanket ban. In this note James Barnard reminds us of the Without Prejudice Rule framework, its recognised exceptions and how the Supreme Court case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSA 44 created another wide-ranging exception.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, February 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“A party that referred the court to a term of an offer made by it pursuant to CPR Pt 36 waived its without prejudice privilege and could not prevent the remaining terms of the offer from being referred to the court.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024