Without Prejudice Rule

[heisenberg]

Dear good ladies and fellows,

I recently received a response to one of my letters before action (uploaded in another thread) however the other side has referred to and detailed that that was set out within without prejudice communications. There was no agreement to waive the protection of these communications.

Presumably this invalidates the response to my letter before action?

Many thanks.

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

"Without Prejudice" documents are those documents that relate to all negotiations genuinely aimed at a settlement between the parties.

^ which cannot be referred to in court

( thanks R0b )

[R0b]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

^ which cannot be referred to in court

[charitynjw]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

http://andrewjackson.co.uk/downloads...0interests.pdf

[CLL1]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

No, not necessarily. I often deal with WOP communication within an open letter, making clear the sections that are WOP. When coming to a trial, the WOP parts are simply redacted.

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

No, not necessarily. I often deal with WOP communication within an open letter, making clear the sections that are WOP. When coming to a trial, the WOP parts are simply redacted.

Things can easily get a bit messy in those circumstances I imagine.

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

In their response to your pre-action letter? is there any discussion of settlement/negotiation at all ?

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

In their response to your pre-action letter? is there any discussion of settlement/negotiation at all ?

In my e-mail to them:

"Without prejudice save as to costs

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write further to my recent correspondence.

You will note you have essentially handed me a smoking gun in relation to this matter.

You are also no doubt aware of the impact this matter could have on your registration with the SRA.

I trust we can therefore come to an amicable settlement agreement on this matter sooner rather than later."

When they issued a response to my letter before action they essentially accused me of trying to bribe them and they argued it would be unprofessional of them to entertain this. I was simply making the point that should my claim(s) succeed the SRA would be the first to know about it as they have suggested that this matter should be referred to the court to decide on.

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

ooooo ouch, they are right I'm afraid. I think if you are going to proceed with this you should try and get some proper assistance - maybe a law centre would be able to advise on your case/help with letters etc - for your DPA issue and this discrimination issue, otherwise you risk digging yourself rather a large ( and potentially costly) hole or, if you really don't want to, do you maybe want to post drafts on here for honest opinion from others before sending them. We're not legally qualified ( most of us aren't anyway) but together do have a lot of experience.

[heisenberg]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

ooooo ouch, they are right I'm afraid.

They are!? About which part?

I think if you are going to proceed with this you should try and get some proper assistance - maybe a law centre would be able to advise on your case/help with letters etc - for your DPA issue and this discrimination issue, otherwise you risk digging yourself rather a large ( and potentially costly) hole or, if you really don't want to, do you maybe want to post drafts on here for honest opinion from others before sending them. We're not legally qualified ( most of us aren't anyway) but together do have a lot of experience.

Seems everywhere I turn everyone is too busy or they claim the matter is outside of their expertise. I think I have contacted every firm in the country that has a legal aid contract (no exaggeration).

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

About the data protection act case? Might it be worth running through it on here? We might at least be able to figure out why you aren't getting anywhere with firms.

Legal Aid is incredibly difficult to get - particularly for civil cases - so might be worth having a look into your eligibility for legal aid as well.

[Amethyst]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

Thinking on that might be worth look at the case first before the Legal Aid issue so you can be absolutely certain any thoughts are based solely on the case.

[R0b]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

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?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

^ which cannot be referred to in court

"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.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Without Prejudice Rule

In my e-mail to them:

"Without prejudice save as to costs

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write further to my recent correspondence.

You will note you have essentially handed me a smoking gun in relation to this matter.

You are also no doubt aware of the impact this matter could have on your registration with the SRA.

I trust we can therefore come to an amicable settlement agreement on this matter sooner rather than later."

When they issued a response to my letter before action they essentially accused me of trying to bribe them and they argued it would be unprofessional of them to entertain this. I was simply making the point that should my claim(s) succeed the SRA would be the first to know about it as they have suggested that this matter should be referred to the court to decide on.

I think this is just stating some facts and does not support bribery. If it were to have that effect on the SRA because it is true then it were to have that effect. In my view, if may be a promise that action could or would be taken but it is just one party saying to the other, look here is the situation and these are my options and potential outcomes.