header-logo header-logo

20 June 2019 / Tony Allen
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Features , Profession , ADR , Mediation
printer mail-detail

Privilege without prejudice

Mediators will be pleased to find judges taking the broad view of ‘without prejudice’ privilege, says Tony Allen

  • ‘Without prejudice’ privilege implications for mediation: Willers v Joyce and others, and Briggs v Clay and others

Mediators always reassure parties that what happens in a mediation remains inaccessible to a court—both if the claim does not settle, but also when it does. ‘Without prejudice’ (WP) privilege applies automatically to what transpires during mediations, as it does to any genuine settlement discussions. The privilege belongs to the parties only, and the mediator has no right to prevent parties from choosing to waive that. Some case law has suggested that contractual confidentiality created when a mediation agreement is signed also protects mediation exchanges from exposure in court (and anywhere else) and that the mediator too can invoke a remedy for breach besides the parties.

Recent cases in the Business and Property Courts have revisited the limits of WP protection. One—Willers v Joyce and others [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch)—looks specifically at the aftermath

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll