header-logo header-logo

A rare privilege?

09 August 2007 / Joanna Ludlam
Issue: 7285 / Categories: Features , Banking , Employment , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Two recent cases clarify when communications are properly without prejudice, says Joanna Ludlam

The principle of without prejudice privilege is trite law but its practical application is not without difficulty. Although the phrase “without prejudice” is often invoked, the circumstances in which parties to a dispute are able to use it to exclude evidence have not been as clearly defined by the courts as might be expected. Two recent cases have clarified the circumstances in which it may apply.

Without prejudice privilege attaches to documents created for the purposes of genuinely attempting to compromise or resolve disputes. The rationale behind it is to encourage parties to communicate more openly than they might otherwise do in open correspondence, which is potentially admissible in evidence against them. It is hoped that this will encourage litigants to settle their disputes, rather than resort to court proceedings. A communication which is genuinely without prejudice will be inadmissible to prove admissions or concessions contained within it.

FRAMLINGTON

In Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 502,

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll