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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll