Without Prejudice when making bundle

[Brbnewbie!]

Hello,

This is regarding a Small Claims Court case and making the bundle.

Some social media messages have been marked Without Prejudice by the claimant only.

Does this mean
a) none of the messages from both claimant and defendant can be used in the bundle.

b) the messages can be printed out but the claimants need to be fully blacked out by both sides as Without Prejudice was noted for the messages and preceding messages.

c) The messages from both can be used as there was an attempt to negotiate amicably before things changed direction.

thank you.

[Brbnewbie!]

Wanted to add, not every individual message has ‘without prejudice added to each post… it’s a note at the end of multiple messages saying essentially that all the messages prior and including this are without prejudice.

[atticus]

"Without Prejudice" protects attempts to settle. Can these messages be described as attempts to settle the dispute?

[Brbnewbie!]

Thank you. I think so: The messages introduce the dispute and then escalate with the end resulting in a letter before claim being written the next day. So both parties certainly discuss the dispute and the claimant gives instructions on how to resolve the issue until the respondent decides to not engage any further.


This conversation is only useful to show why everything escalated and parts of it (words by both parties) are quoted in the Claim N1 form by claimant which the Judge imagine has seen as directions from them has been given with date/ location etc.

1) Could the claimant revoke their own Without Prejudice statement if they wish to include their part of the conversation for context?

2) Does the Without Prejudice only refer to that day of the message it was sent eg day 10 and not previous messages ( on a different day) even if a note was added on day 10 to say all messages are without prejudice including previous messages for days 1-9?

3) should the claimant only include the respondents side of the conversation in a bundle , none of it, or all with regards to all of above?

Hope that makes sense! And thank you so much!

[atticus]

1. yes.

2. It's not as simple as that. Genuine attempts to settle are privileged even if "without prejudice" is not used.

3. Including only one side of a conversation removes a lot of context; it is rarely helpful.

[Brbnewbie!]

Thank you Atticus. Very helpful.

So to initiate option 1 and revoke own Without Privilege statement- is it as simple as just including all sides of the conversation in the bundle - (note that the N1 already quotes some of the conversation, which presuming the Judge
has seen to order date of hearing…

[atticus]

Perhaps state that you are waiving your privilege in your WP correspondence. But the other party may object if they were taking part in what they believed to be a privileged dialogue.

[Brbnewbie!]

Thank you again. I really appreciate it.

I’ve also entered the correspondence into chat gpt to see if it meets the terms of WP with regards to tone and language and WP under England and Wales as perhaps my idea is different. I know this approach can’t be 100 % relied on but the impartiality of it reading a conversation is a useful baseline).

It determined: The language and tone across the messages suggest that these communications are not genuine attempts to negotiate or settle a dispute under the "without prejudice" principle. They reflect frustration, defensiveness, and a desire to clarify facts rather than a constructive, collaborative approach to resolving the matter. Without a clear indication of compromise, offer, or invitation to discuss settlement terms, these communications are unlikely to meet the standards of "without prejudice" negotiations under England and Wales law.

[atticus]

Without seeing the correspondence I cannot comment whether ChatGPT has given you a good answer or is hallucinating.