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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll