Emails treated as ‘without prejudice’ can be used for costs – Litigation Futures

Posted September 12th, 2019 in arbitration, costs, electronic mail, news, without prejudice communications by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th September 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Offer to settle for no damages was valid under part 36 – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 28th August 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Another judge wrongly views ‘without prejudice’ offer – Litigation Futures

Posted August 5th, 2019 in costs, disclosure, judges, news, tribunals, without prejudice communications by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 5th August 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Costs award overturned after judge read ‘without prejudice’ letters – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th July 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Lawyers who had “direct interest” in case face costs hearing – Litigation Futures

‘A ruling about “without prejudice” correspondence has brought to light a claim against a group of lawyers who now face having to pay the costs of a case they facilitated.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 15th April 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Solicitors and QC “cannot rely” on without prejudice negotiations – Legal Futures

‘Allowing a City law firm and QC to rely on ‘without prejudice’ communications to defend allegations of professional negligence could “undermine the policy of encouraging parties to settle disputes”, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 4th March 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

LiP sanctioned for revealing ‘without prejudice’ offer in court – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 5th November 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Confidentiality, Costs and Mediation – Garden Court Chambers

‘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.’

Full story

Garden Court Chambers, 31st January 2017

Source: www.gardencourtmediation.co.uk

Negotiating in the Shadow of the Court: Mediation in parallel with litigation – Family Law Week

‘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.’

Full story

Family Law Week, 27th October 2016

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

High Court: part 36 offer meant party could not accept earlier ‘without prejudice’ offer – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation futures, 15th July 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

DB UK Bank Ltd (trading as DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors – WLR Daily

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

Without prejudice privilege – Law Society’s Gazette

‘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).’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 15th February 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Court of Appeal : LiPs can benefit from ‘without prejudice’ rule without knowing what it means – Litigation Futures

‘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.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th January 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and another – WLR Daily

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

Without prejudice communications – 11 Stone Buildings

“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

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others; Zodiac Seats UK Ltd and another v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd; Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another – WLR Daily

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Jet Airways (India) Ltd and others; Zodiac Seats UK Ltd and another v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd; Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another [2012] EWHC 3318 (Pat); [2012] WLR (D) 349

“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

Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espaňa SL – WLR Daily

Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espaňa SL [2011] EWCA Civ 618; [2011] WLR (D) 173

“A person threatened another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark within section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 if he stated or implied that he would bring a claim if the other did not agree to the terms he proposed. The test to be applied was whether a reasonable recipient would understand the statements made to indicate nor merely an assertion of legal rights but an intention to enforce those rights.”

WLR Daily, 24th May 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others – WLR daily

Posted October 29th, 2010 in evidence, law reports, privilege, without prejudice communications by sally

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others  [2010] UKSC 44; [2010] WLR(D) 270 

“Facts communicated between parties in the course of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations which, but for the ‘without prejudice’ rule, would be admissible as part of the factual matrix or surrounding circumstances as an aid to construction of the resulting agreement, were admissible in evidence, as an exception to the rule, in a subsequent dispute between the parties as to the proper meaning of a clause in the agreement.”

WLR Daily, 29th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 17th, 2010 in evidence, law reports, privilege, without prejudice communications by sally

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 79; [2010] WLR (D) 40

“There was not, and need not be, an exception to the ‘without prejudice’ rule such as to permit evidence of ‘without prejudice’ communications and discussions to be given if there was a dispute about the interpretation of a written settlement agreement.”

WLR Daily, 16th February 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v K (Matrimonial proceedings: Privilege against self-incrimination) – Times Law Report

Regina v K (Matrimonial proceedings: Privilege against self-incrimination)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“While information disclosed under compulsion in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings was not admissible in criminal proceedings, admissions made in withoutprejudice negotiations were not inadmissible.”

The Times, 19th August 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk