Without Prejudice Subject To Agreement


However, the courts treat the veiled veil without prejudice to a certain respect, and the principle set out in the recent judgments of the Court of Appeal12 is that the abrogation of the concealment of prejudice must be demonstrated as “manifest nonsense”. These are behaviours that, in a way, are “depressing, dishonest or dishonourable”.13 Courts recognize that, in practice, negotiations often involve a certain degree of attitude and accept that a party can take a position in discussions without prejudices incompatible with its open position. However, there is a line to draw and the use of the brand without prejudice will not give a carte blanche to a party to be dishonest. [2] Where the exchange is found, without prejudice, evidence of perjury, extortion or other overt criminal misconduct or conduct; If one party (part A) has settled a dispute with another party and is attempting to recover all or part of the compensation paid by another party (part B), Part B will almost inevitably invoke the fact that Part A, whatever the merit, has agreed on a disproportionate number. In these circumstances, the content of the non-prejudice conversations may be considered as evidence in a subsequent proceeding to determine the extent to which Part A fulfilled its obligation to reduce its losses.14 Suppose that A, B and C are all parties to the same dispute, A being the plaintiff and B and C co-accused. If A settles the accounts with B, but pursues the action against C, can the unprejudiced communications that lead to the A and B comparison be relied upon as evidence in the ongoing disputes between A and C? The answer lies in the judgment of rush`s House of Lords – Tompkins -v- GLC17. Rush – Tompkins (a construction contractor company) was involved in a dispute with GLC and a second defendant and eventually reached an agreement with the GLC through unprejudiced negotiations. The House of Lords found that the contents of these negotiations could not be disclosed to the second defendant. Sticking differently would prevent parties from attempting a genuine solution in the multi-party dispute. Lord Griffiths stated that, in general, statements made in an attempt to resolve a dispute are “unprejudiced” and, as such, cannot be characterized as evidence in judicial proceedings. Communication can be identified as “without prejudice to costs.” The label means that the standard applies without prejudice until the court renders a judgment. Once this has been done, the Tribunal will consider the issue of the awarding of costs. The English courts have broad discretion to order a party (the paying party) to pay the legal costs of its opponent (the receptive party).

English courts operate on the “paid loser” principle; as a general rule, the receiving party is the successful party in court. However, the Tribunal is entitled to review the content of the communication, with the exception of communication costs for the limited purpose of the decision on the magnitude of the costs it enacts.

Pin It