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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll