header-logo header-logo

01 November 2019 / Nadya Rouben
Issue: 7864 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Pride & the without prejudice doctrine

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll