header-logo header-logo

13 January 2011 / Davina Watson
Issue: 7448 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

An exception to the rule

How protected are your settlement negotiations? Davina Watson investigates post Oceanbulk

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others [2010] UKSC 44, [2010] All ER (D) 250 (Oct) has widened the exceptions to the long established principle that “without prejudice” communications are not admissible in evidence. However, as shown below, the judgment has merely widened the limited exceptions to the without prejudice rule (the Rule)—the underlying principle to encourage free discussion during settlement negotiations remains. 

Oceanbulk: background facts

The parties’ original dispute related to a series of forward freight agreements. The parties entered into without prejudice negotiations which resulted in a settlement agreement. Subsequently a dispute arose about the construction of one of the terms of the agreement. There was no issue as to the existence of the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties agreed that all terms were accurately recorded and neither party was seeking rectification of the agreement.

The issue between the parties was whether TMT was entitled to rely

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll