Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date1969
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
105 cases
  • Oh Kuang Liang v Associated Wood Industries Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1995
  • Dusun Desaru Sdn Bhd v Wang Ah Yu
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1999
  • Emw Law LLP (Respondent/Claimant) v Mr Scott Halborg
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 4 Mayo 2017
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Marzo 2009
    ...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…
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 6 Abril 2020
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...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......

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