header-logo header-logo

29 November 2007 / Anne-sophie Julienne
Issue: 7299 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Settled out of court

Does negligent misrepresentation trigger the lifting of the protection afforded by the without prejudice rule? asks Anne-Sophie Julienne

In recent years, English courts have shown increasing support to the without prejudice rule and the settlement of disputes outside of the court. The without prejudice rule renders inadmissible in subsequent litigation admissions contained in communications which are genuinely aimed at settlement. The rule is founded partly upon the need to give effect to the intention of the parties, ie their mutual intention to compromise, and partly upon public policy that parties should not be discouraged from negotiations by the fear that things said or done in the course of written or oral negotiations could be used to their prejudice in the course of proceedings.

PROTECTION NOT ABSOLUTE

Although the protection afforded by the without prejudice rule is not absolute, the courts have taken a restrictive view of the circumstances in which it will be departed from. Save on very rare occasions, it is the fact of the negotiations, rather than their content, which is of

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll