Without Prejudice in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Unilever Plc v Procter and Gamble Company
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 October 1999

    They show that the protection of admissions against interest is the most important practical effect of the rule. But to dissect out identifiable admissions and withhold protection from the rest of without prejudice communications (except for a special reason) would not only create huge practical difficulties but would be contrary to the underlying objective of giving protection to the parties (in the words of Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tompkins at p.1300)

  • Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council
    • House of Lords
    • 03 November 1988

    The "without prejudice rule" is a rule governing the admissibility of evidence and is founded upon the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than litigate them to a finish. It is nowhere more clearly expressed than in the judgment of Oliver L.J. in Cutts v. Head [1984] Ch. 290, 306:

    The rule applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence.

    I regard this as an exceptional case and it should not be allowed to whittle down the protection given to the parties to speak freely about all issues in the litigation both factual and legal when seeking compromise and, for the purpose of establishing a basis of compromise, admitting certain facts.

  • Oliver Alfred Sidney Cutts (Appellant (Plaintiff) v Albert Head and Another (Respondents
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 07 December 1983

    It is that parties should be encouraged so far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations (and that includes, of course, as much the failure to reply to an offer as an actual reply) may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings.

  • Calderbank v Calderbank
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 June 1975

    Before Mrs. justice Heilbron the wife's application for costs was baaed upon a letter which had been written by the wife's solicitors to the husband's solicitors offering something substantially more than £10,000. Mrs. Justice Heilbron, despite that letter being drawn to her attention, made no order as to costs.

  • Somatra Ltd v Sinclair Roche & Temperley (A Firm). ; Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Somatra Ltd and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 October 2003

    The essential point in a case like the present case is, in my judgment, that it would be unjust to allow one party to deploy the material for its benefit on the merits in one part of the litigation without allowing the other to do so too in another. In these circumstances I do not see how it could be just thereafter to exclude the same evidence when the merits came to be considered in detail at a trial.

See all results
Legislation
  • Immigration Act 2016
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2016
    ...... (5) The Secretary of State may approve a strategy either with or without modifications (but a modification may not relate to the assessment ... . . (c) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence under the law of England ......
  • Diseases of Animals Act 1975
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1975
    ......them that any disease might be carried or. transmitted. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the. powers conferred by this section and ......
  • Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1939
    ......services essential to the life of the community. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the. powers conferred by the preceding ......
  • Powers of Attorney Act 1971
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1971
    ......instrument. (3) This section is without prejudice to any requirement in, or. having effect under, any other Act as ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT