[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to M Amos | Help ]

Response to Abbey National - I Won..I think??

from M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com)
This is a solicitor's point of view:

I have looked up the Times case reported on 3 June (Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi (CA)).

It related to a meeting where it was agreed that the oral discussions were 'without prejudice'.

The CA held that without prejudice discussions could be admitted in later proceedings where there had been unambigious impropriety and a very clear case of abuse of a priviliged occasion. On the facts, the CA held that the discussions were not admissable in later proceedings as there was no record or agreement about what had been said, and because the claimant had not cited any evidence to show that there had been an unambigious impropriety on the defendant's behalf

The court made it clear that it did not want to weaken the without prejudice rule: 'To allow such admissions in evidence flew in the face of the public policy justification for the without prejudice rule'.

This case followed a house of Lords decision in Unilever v proctor and Gamble [2000] 1 WLR 2436, 2444A.

(I have only read the Times report and not the case transcript).

I am not aware of the 'case last year' that MLJ refers to.

(posted 7594 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]