header-logo header-logo

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

A rare privilege?

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

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