header-logo header-logo

Keeping schtum

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll