With or Without Prejudice? - WeirFoulds LLP
Apr 8, For a communication to attract without prejudice privilege, there must or not the document, meeting or phone call has been labelled or stated. Apr 11, The Canadian settlement privilege began as the “without prejudice” rule adopted from English common law. According to the rule. In practice, the entirety of any without prejudice discussions will usually be raised the issue of a collateral oral agreement after these negotiations had ended . are met such as the requirement for consideration) so that it was not necessary.
Thus it was not covered by any form of privilege from later disclosure in the intended criminal proceedings. However, that is not this case. The question the judge had to decide was whether the first part of the meeting [was] held under the cloak of without prejudice protection.
The privilege from disclosure of without prejudice documents operates only in respect of production in court, and in respect of deployment in any proceedings which may arise following or alongside the negotiation. Two questions follow from this: Once the entirety of the proceedings are at an end then as between the parties and the court it could be argued that there is no longer any question of privilege from production.
To what extent does the confidentiality in the documents remain following conclusion of the proceedings by a court order, so that others can still be prevented from seeing them?
Conclusion of proceedings The conclusion of proceedings at 1 in the previous paragraph deals with three sets of circumstance as to when the privilege may be said to subsist or not: Continuation of the immunity as between the parties; Continuation as between one party to a settlement A and another party in proceedings B arising out of the same dispute where one party to the settlement A is a party in the separate proceedings with C ; and Reliance on the privilege in separate proceedings where one party to the settlement is a party in the separate proceedings.
In the case of 1 and 3 it may be that the without prejudice rule immunity does not survive; whereas in 2 it does. Continuation of immunity as between the parties Where a court order is made disposing of all issues between parties then, as between the parties themselves not third parties to proceedings, see 2 belowthe question arises as to whether the immunity arises; or, for example, can one party rely on otherwise immune documents in support of a claim for costs Calderbank correspondence or not?
When there is an issue before the court as to whether without prejudice communications have resulted in a concluded agreement, evidence of those communications is admissible: Tomlin v Standard Telephones. This is for the understandable reason that without considering the communications in question it would be impossible to decide whether there was a concluded settlement agreement or not, see Tomlin [ above at G and A].
If the immunity becomes redundant once there is a court order which disposes of all issues, there is no need for argument about whether the privilege from disclosure exists.
Without subsisting proceedings there is no need for the immunity to be continued.
Parties can then refer to the position they adopted in mediation or other forms of negotiation when the separate issue of costs comes to be decided. Confidentiality and without prejudice rule immunity But what of the confidentiality which exists in the negotiations and any documents arising from them?
The privilege can only exist as between the parties to the negotiations and the court. Evidence, otherwise thought to be immune from production, may be admissible in subsequent proceedings. Where the issue is whether without prejudice communications have resulted in a concluded compromise agreement, those communications are admissible see eg Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables  1 WLR The correspondence, formerly immune from production, becomes the evidence or part of it for the agreement between the parties.
Dankwerts LJ with whom Sir Gordon Wilmer agreed reasoned the agreement point as follows at I think they mean without prejudice to the position of the writer of the letter if the terms he proposes are not accepted.
Without prejudice rule immunity – unrevised | dbfamilylaw
If the terms proposed in the letter are accepted a complete contract is established, and the letter, although written without prejudice, operates to alter the old state of things and to establish a new one. Of this he held as follows: Similarly, in the case of a settlement made in without prejudice correspondence, the correspondence, although privileged when sent and received, is admissible in the event of a dispute as to the terms and meaning of the settlement, on the same basis that any correspondence in which a contract is made is admissible.
Whether the same will be said of the content of mediation negotiations where a memorandum of understanding is concluded but has not been advised upon by lawyers, remains to be seen. The likelihood is that this will depend upon at what time it is held that the agreement becomes executory.
The impropriety allegation was raised as a preliminary issue in Williams v Hull. Their contributions to the purchase price had been such that Ms Williams Wwho was herself a solicitor, had paid appreciably more than Mr Hull H. The couple had signed a TR1 transfer of title which appeared to have been altered after its execution by them.
This was the document which might be treated as defining their beneficial entitlements. W sought an order that privilege did not attach to a letter written to her by H. This letter was one in a series of three written by the couple to each other before the issue of proceedings. W wanted to rely on the second letter from H to her and headed by him: However, such an allegation at a preliminary stage in the proceedings was not enough to override the immunity to production of the letter at this stage.
It must remain covered by without prejudice rule immunity from production. Facts admitted in negotiations, later denied The facts admitted basis for exception from without prejudice rule immunity applies in any civil proceedings.
Family financial remedy proceedings provide an easy example, where say a party has admitted facts in the course of negotiations, but denies one or more of those fact when it comes to a final hearing.
For example, in negotiations between solicitors, in collaborative law sessions or in mediation a spouse A admits to possession of a particular asset; but when settlement does not follow he will not admit the existence of the asset in sworn or other court documents.
The same would apply to a district judge at a FDR. Without prejudice immunity is joint as between the parties to the negotiation. It can only be waived by them jointly save in the case of the Calderbank reservation on costs, where the right to refer to negotiation can be retained: As between the client the parties to the mediation and the mediator, the privilege is always that of the client jointly with other parties to the mediation.
If there is a negotiated agreement, the terms of that and background facts on which it is based or to determine whether it is an agreement can be adduced in evidence a subsequent trial. To that extent the immunity no longer applies where it the issue before the court. As between the loan company and its borrower it is entirely understandable that this condition should be required see similar provision for legal aid below ; but strictly speaking the information in, and the documents concerned, are subject to the without prejudice rule.
But there may be many occasions when a party wants to be able to disclose its communication with the other side in the pleadings, evidence, and argument of a case. However, if the communication is characterized as being without prejudice, such strategic positioning is not available for disclosure in the courtroom. The Court held that protecting settlement privilege promotes parties settling their disputes because parties will be more likely to settle if they know from the outset that their negotiations will not be disclosed.
The question then becomes: First, there must be a dispute between the parties in the sense of existing or contemplated litigation. Second, the purpose of the communication must be to settle a dispute. Third, the intent of the communicating party must be expressly or implicitly to exclude the communication from disclosure.
Therefore, a court may characterize a communication as being without prejudice, even if such words do not appear. If the communication qualifies for the settlement privilege, it will not be admitted into evidence unless both parties waive the privilege.
The protection is for settlement negotiations, and such negotiations are privileged whether or not a settlement is reached. There are exceptions to the settlement privilege, and to come within those exceptions the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the party must show that on balance, it would be in the public interest to make disclosure.
For a communication to attract without prejudice privilege, there must be a real issue between the parties and the communication in question must be, or form part of, a genuine attempt to negotiate a resolution. To determine this, the communication must be analysed objectively in its context. One example is where parties choose to negotiate openly perhaps because this is preferable tactically or perhaps because this is necessary for a party to demonstrate its position to a third party.
Another is those cases in which it would be manifestly unjust to allow privilege protection to apply, such as where a communication amounts to evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, perjury, blackmail or other impropriety. Without prejudice privilege also ceases to attach to communications between parties once the substantive dispute between them has been resolved.
A common example is when a debt is acknowledged by a debtor in financial difficulties, and then the parties negotiate for the creditor to allow deferred or reduced payment as a means of mitigating its potential loss. The post-acknowledgement negotiations will not be privileged.Joyner Lucas - I'm Not Racist
A recent decision in the Property Alliance v RBS  litigation has confirmed that as regulatory investigations can lead to civil proceedings; and as there is public policy interest in the timely and cost-effective resolution of regulatory investigations, without prejudice privilege can extend to communications made with a regulator about the settlement of an investigation. Traps for the unwary There can be significant traps for those who negotiate without fully understanding the nature of without prejudice privilege.
The difficulty with this is that, unless the correspondence specifically pertains to a settlement effort, it simply will not be privileged as a matter of law.
This document is available in the following Practice Areas
Another danger is that without prejudice privilege can be waived — even inadvertently. In some instances parties expressly choose to waive privilege in a communication, often because the letter, e-mail, attendance note or other document contains some information which one or both parties actually wish to place before the court.
However, it is not generally possible for parties to cherry pick items or admissions within any one communication without waiving privilege in respect of the entire communication.
In some instances, attempting to waive privilege of part of one communication can even result in the waiver of privilege in respect of an entire negotiation or suite of documents because it is important, as a matter of public policy, that a partial picture should not be presented to a court. Without prejudice privilege can also be waived if a communication is inadvertently adduced.
In those circumstances an order of the court will be required to determine inadmissibility, and the party against whose interests the communication operates will have to rely on the court disregarding what it has seen in any subsequent litigation.
A final trap for the unwary arises from the fact that without prejudice privilege is a joint privilege, which applies to communications between, and therefore protects, both parties.