Exception that proves the Rule - English Supreme Court extends Exception to Without Prejudice privilege

more+
less-

Michael Axe reports on the English Supreme Court's controversial decision to allow the admission of Without Prejudice communications as evidence in relation to the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

Without Prejudice (WP) privilege covers communications between parties (whether written or verbal) which represent a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. The general rule is that WP communications are not admissible in Court as evidence. This rule has developed as a matter of public policy to ensure that parties can negotiate freely during settlement discussions, without fear that anything they say can later be used against them in Court by the other side.

As with any general rule, there are exceptions, and one of the key exceptions to Without Prejudice privilege is that WP communications can be used as evidence to show that a binding settlement agreement had been concluded. This exception was historically applied very narrowly, and the Courts would only allow WP communications as evidence when a dispute related to the existence of a settlement agreement, not to the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

In October 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that a new 'interpretation exception' to the Without Prejudice rule should be recognised. The Supreme Court ruled that objective facts which were passed between the parties via WP communications during settlement negotiations could be admissible as evidence of the 'factual matrix or surrounding circumstances' relating to the correct interpretation of a settlement agreement.

Although the Supreme Court has recognised the existence of a new exception to the Without Prejudice rule, in reality, it is still a very narrow exception which is unlikely to undermine the protection afforded to settlement discussions. In particular, the exception will not allow one party to use another party's WP communications against them in Court proceedings relating to the original dispute.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Michael Axe | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×