header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Keeping schtum

new_image_9_4

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter trace the origins & history of the without prejudice rule

As with all litigation, claims to an employment tribunal carry risk. Even what appears to be the strongest claim, or most powerful defence, can be upset by a witness that does not come up to proof, a previously undisclosed document or a tribunal that simply does not agree with the argument on the day. For that reason, combined with the desire to save face, expenses or simply the hassle of attending a tribunal and the difficult experience of submitting to cross-examination, many litigants seek to compromise claims.

Offers to settle

A time-honoured and standard method of seeking to compromise is by the simple means of one side or the other making an offer to settle. Any genuine attempt to compromise proceedings will usually fall within what is commonly known as the “without prejudice” rule (whether or not it is marked as such), meaning that, usually, any such negotiations will not come to the notice of the employment

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

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
back-to-top-scroll