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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll