header-logo header-logo

Pride & the without prejudice doctrine

01 November 2019 / Nadya Rouben
Issue: 7864 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
Communications treated as ‘without prejudice’ can be admissible on questions of costs, says Nadya Rouben
  • Without prejudice: the standard position.
  • Attempts to settle: the without prejudice doctrine.
  • A crucial reminder for lawyers communicating for ‘without prejudice’ protection.

When correspondence is marked as ‘without prejudice’, the standard position is that such correspondence is not admissible on the question of costs, except if it has been marked as ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ or if the right to refer to the correspondence in respect of costs has been reserved. However, on 2 July 2019, the High Court held in the case of Sternberg Reed Solicitors v Andrew Paul Harrison [2019] EWHC 2065 (Ch), [2019] Costs LR 1489 that correspondence which appears on its face to be ‘without prejudice’ (even if not expressly marked as such) can be taken into account when considering the question of costs.

Appeal

In this case, the claimant firm of solicitors (Sternberg Reed) was granted permission to appeal against a costs award

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll