Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Without prejudice rule
THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IF A PARTY WANTS TO ATTEMPT TO RELY ON "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" DOCUMENTS: THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE WP RULE CONSIDERED

THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IF A PARTY WANTS TO ATTEMPT TO RELY ON “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” DOCUMENTS: THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE WP RULE CONSIDERED

June 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We are looking at a judgment from today which considers the “without prejudice” rule in some detail. In particular the steps a party should take if it wishes to argue that it should be able to rely on without prejudice…

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT RELIED ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT RELIED ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS

April 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

In West v Churchill & Anor [2024] EWHC 940 (Ch) HHJ Keyser KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) struck out a defence and counterclaim that referred to without prejudice negotiations and correspondence.  There had been no agreement reached between…

DISCUSSIONS TO SELL LAND WERE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AT HEARING: THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE EXAMINED

DISCUSSIONS TO SELL LAND WERE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AT HEARING: THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE EXAMINED

September 12, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content

In  Windmill Holdings SPV Ltd v Adams & Anor (LAND REGISTRATION – ADVERSE POSSESSION – evidence) [2021] UKUT 228 (LC)  The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Judge Elizabeth Cooke, upheld the decision of the First-tier tribunal excluding certain evidence on the…

EXCEPTIONS TO THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE:  COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS MATTERS SET OUT IN MEDIATION TO BE PLEADED IN A DEFENCE

EXCEPTIONS TO THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS MATTERS SET OUT IN MEDIATION TO BE PLEADED IN A DEFENCE

April 16, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lancer Property Asset Management Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 551 the Court of Appeal upheld an order directing that statements made in  without prejudice  in mediation were disclosable and could be…

A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE

A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE

April 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously  acting for…

NO SPECIAL FORM OF "MEDIATION PRIVILEGE": MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT OVERRIDE GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREVENTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION BEING USED A A FORM OF BLACKMAIL

NO SPECIAL FORM OF “MEDIATION PRIVILEGE”: MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT OVERRIDE GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREVENTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION BEING USED A A FORM OF BLACKMAIL

September 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The decision of Mrs Justice Rose in  Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster & Ors [2015] EWHC 3895 (Ch) considers the issue of “mediation privilege”.  This is not a new case (the judgment was dated 21st December 2015) however it has…

DISCLOSING DETAILS OF COSTS INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR MEDIATION : DISCLOSURE ALLOWED: HIGH COURT DECISION

January 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

In Savings Advice Limited -v- EDF Energy Customers Ltd [2017] EWHC B1 (Costs)  Master Haworth had to consider the issue of admissibility of evidence relating to a mediation. KEY POINTS Information provided about costs in the run up of a mediation…

CANAL TRUST'S ATTEMPTS TO BARGE OVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE IS SUNK WITHOUT TRACE: NO WATERING DOWN OF THE PRINCIPLES

CANAL TRUST’S ATTEMPTS TO BARGE OVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE IS SUNK WITHOUT TRACE: NO WATERING DOWN OF THE PRINCIPLES

September 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

Can a party refer to without prejudice correspondence at interlocutory hearings? The previous post looked at the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) in relation to the issue of McKenzie friends….

PUTTING "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" ON LETTERS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE THEM PRIVILEGED: AVONWICK -V- WEBINVEST IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

January 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Witness statements

The case of Avonwick -v- Webinvest has been looked at before on this blog. Mr Justice David Richards held that letters asking for time to pay a debt were not covered by privilege just because they were headed “without prejudice”….

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.