Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 1969 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
105 cases
- Oh Kuang Liang v Associated Wood Industries Sdn Bhd
- Dusun Desaru Sdn Bhd v Wang Ah Yu
-
Emw Law LLP (Respondent/Claimant) v Mr Scott Halborg
...without prejudice communications have resulted in a concluded compromise agreement, those communications are admissible. Tomlin v. Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1378 is an example. … (6) In Muller's case (which was a decision on discovery, not admissibility) one of the......
-
Ofulue and Another v Bossert
...2 Sometimes letters get headed "without privilege" in the most absurd circumstances, as Ormrod J observed in Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1378, 1384. But where the letters are not headed "without prejudice" unnecessarily or meaninglessly, as......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Check Your Privilege In Settlement Discussions WP Or Not WP, That Is The Question
...At A Glance Guide to Legal Privilege and Investigations Footnotes 1 (1889) 23 QBD 335 2 Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 201 3 Paragraph 36 4 Paragraph 43 5 Paragraph 45 6 Paragraph 46 7 Paragraph 48 8 Paragraph 44 9 Paragraph 50 10 Paragraph 14 of BGC 11 Paragrap......
2 books & journal articles
-
Tort Law
...dragged on and the tort action became time-barred. Choo Han Teck J held that, following Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd[1969] 1 WLR 1378, the issue as to liability had been settled, but not quantum. As such, the plaintiff had a worthless contract, as there was nothing in the con......
-
THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” RULE
...document because its purpose is now complete and at an end.” 10 Supra note 6, at 1300. 11 (1889) 23 QBD 335. 12 Ibid, at 337. 13 [1969] 1 WLR 1378. Followed by the Malaysian High Court in Aluminium Industries Sdn Bhd v Cookermate (M) Sdn Bhd[1990] 2 CLJ 777 at 779. 14 Or, more accurately, t......