Without Prejudice Rule

[R0b]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

"Without prejudiceNegotiations with a view to a settlement are usually conducted ‘without prejudice’, which means that the circumstances in which the content of those negotiations may be revealed to the court are very restricted. Ref: CPR Glossary

Very restricted does not mean inadmissible, ie if the circumstances so justified it they could be warranted in some circumstances.

Yes there is no blanket ban on WP being admissible, so you are correct however given the circumstances of the email and the exceptions to the WP rule, it would not be admissible in court - well blackmail is an exception in which WP can be waived but that would need to be raised from the other side and not Heisenberg.

[R0b]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

"Without prejudiceNegotiations with a view to a settlement are usually conducted ‘without prejudice’, which means that the circumstances in which the content of those negotiations may be revealed to the court are very restricted. Ref: CPR Glossary

Very restricted does not mean inadmissible, ie if the circumstances so justified it they could be warranted in some circumstances.

Yes there is no blanket ban on WP being admissible, so you are correct however given the circumstances of the email and the exceptions to the WP rule, it would not be admissible in court - well blackmail is an exception in which WP can be waived but that would need to be raised from the other side and not Heisenberg.

[wales01man]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

I have no legal training I am just a Layman but must agree you need to seek legal advice which you will most likely have to pay for.Instead of threatening SRA or some other Body DO IT if you feel wronged these Solicitors have no intention of settling with you and as far as I have read you have not written a figure of the Claim to them.
Amethyst and many others on LB can offer a ton of help just trust them and tell all bits and pieces of info make their helping harder.

If you feel you have a case make certain you go in prepared don't let them rip you apart if it comes to Court they may and the will claim costs of you

[Openlaw15]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Yes there is no blanket ban on WP being admissible, so you are correct however given the circumstances of the email and the exceptions to the WP rule, it would not be admissible in court - well blackmail is an exception in which WP can be waived but that would need to be raised from the other side and not Heisenberg.

Blackmail is a gain through unwarranted menace. Was this unwarranted menace?

- - - Updated - - -

You have so many separated threads on here it's getting hard for me to understand how they all related and which ones you refer to. I see the issue all the time arise with people using the without prejudice heading not understanding what it actually means and it seems like this is a clear example.

What exactly did your LBA contain which they believe is to be without prejudice? Can't you just amend the LBA and re-send it with the offending information redacted?

I was thinking this too, ie the 'adverse inference'..must be the same situation.

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Thanks all.

Firstly, many apologies about all the threads but it is easier for me to reference etc.

There were no WP communications in the LBA. I only sent them an WP e-mail after they foolishly and accidentally sent me an e-mail disclosing details of their discussions on the matter. There was no bribery intended and the PD actually requires you to take steps to settle the dispute. I have asked them to send me another letter without reference to WP communications.

I have today spoken to a solicitor (who seems a really nice fellow like the people on here) and he said he would read through the papers/e-mails but he suspects it may be nothing more than foolish and incompetent conduct on their part.

[charitynjw]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

intrigued am I!

:tinysmile_aha_t:

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

intrigued am I!

:tinysmile_aha_t:

Its a funny old world we live in. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Did I mention that the including of WP communications in an open letter emanated from a large legal firm in London? Seems a blessing they didn't take on my case.

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Looks like my first court experience is off to a good start. The court service has failed by all accounts to send me written acknowledgement of my claim. Is that pretty normal?

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Have you filed a claim ? For this same case ? Against the solicitors ? What did the solicitor you spoke with yesterday come back with?

Did you submit via Moneyclaim online ? There should be an auto email, and you should get a letter stating your claim has been issued in a few days.

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Have you filed a claim ? For this same case ? Against the solicitors ? What did the solicitor you spoke with yesterday come back with?

Did you submit via Moneyclaim online ? There should be an auto email, and you should get a letter stating your claim has been issued in a few days.

This was one of the matters I approached a firm for advice on via legal aid. They said my case had no real prospects of success. However, I submitted a letter before action and a follow up letter and got no response to both so I just sent a claim to the money claims centre.

I think the online service limits you to only a few characters when setting out the particulars so I submitted the claim via post.

The solicitor I spoke to yesterday said he may need to send a further letter before action to the two firms in question. He said one of them was full of nonsense by suggesting I had to wait until sometime in April to get a response to my letter before action.

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Yes, usually you give them 14 days before issuing a claim and they should respond within that time, if they fail to do so then you can issue the claim.

I'm still not happy that you are suing solicitors firms for saying your case has no prospect of success. If that is their opinion, it is their opinion and they do not HAVE to take it on. It is also not their fault if you do not qualify for legal aid. Legal Aid cases are strict at what they can take on.

I don't recall, sorry, whether you made a complaint on the DPA 'breach' originally to the ICO ?

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Yes, usually you give them 14 days before issuing a claim and they should respond within that time, if they fail to do so then you can issue the claim.

I'm still not happy that you are suing solicitors firms for saying your case has no prospect of success. If that is their opinion, it is their opinion and they do not HAVE to take it on. It is also not their fault if you do not qualify for legal aid. Legal Aid cases are strict at what they can take on.

I don't recall, sorry, whether you made a complaint on the DPA 'breach' originally to the ICO ?

I agree with you Amethyst to an extent. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion.

There were issues of assumption with regards to my disability. They seem to propose they knew more about it than I do (or a clinical expert).

There were also issues regarding reasonable adjustments.

If another legal aid solicitor thought any potential claim had no merit then he would not be drafting a letter before action.

The ICO are hopeless. The only way forward is through the courts particularly when there are human rights issues involved.

[charitynjw]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim-online
You can take court action against someone if they owe you money and won’t pay you back.


Could this be why you haven't heard back from MCOL?

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim-online
You can take court action against someone if they owe you money and won’t pay you back.


Could this be why you haven't heard back from MCOL?

Nope. I submitted the claim via post and they either didn't stamp the acknowledgement letter properly, they never sent it or it got lost in the post.

[charitynjw]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Ok - it was just to clarify - a bit of a nudge re Amethyst's question (post #25) that wasn't answered.