- Alcester Office +44 (0)1789 765522
- Bedford Office +44 (0)1234 400000
- Cardiff Office +44 (0)2920 291 704
- Evesham Office +44 (0)1386 425300
- Hindley Office +44 (0)1942 257930
- Leicester Office +44 (0)116 255 9911
- Leigh Office +44 (0)1942 673311
- Lichfield Office +44 (0)1543 414426
- London Office +44 (0)20 7293 0998
- Luton Office +44 (0)1582 720175
- Northampton Office +44 (0)1604 233 200
- Redditch Office +44 (0)1527 406363
- Solihull Office +44 (0)121 705 2255
- Stopsley Office +44 (0)1582 453 366
- Stratford-upon-Avon Office +44 (0)1789 270 452
- Sutton Coldfield Office +44 (0)121 355 6118
- Tunbridge Wells Office +44 (0)844 556 3525
- Walkden Office +44 (0)161 790 1411
- Walsall Office +44 (0)1922 720000
- Walsall Office - Crime Dept +44 (0)1922 647 797
- Warrington Office +44 (0)1925 632267
- Westhoughton Office +44 (0)1942 816515
- Whitefield Office +44 (0)161 796 7920
- Wigan Office +44 (0)1942 244294
Tenant Lives to Fight Again as Court Upholds Without Prejudice Plea
When a tenant admitted in discussions with her landlord's lawyers that she had been in arrears with the lease payments on her restaurant, the admissions were used to justify a claim for forfeiture of the lease by her landlord. However, she claimed that the discussions were 'without prejudice' and could not therefore be used in court proceedings by the landlord. Without prejudice disclosures are legally 'privileged' and cannot normally be required to be disclosed in formal legal proceedings.
Without prejudice discussions are often undertaken with a view to obtaining settlement of disputes and enable both sides to be more open and candid in discussions than they would be were everything discussed able to be used as evidence in court. Such discussions often enable disputes to be settled without having to litigate, or at least narrow the areas of dispute which need to be argued in court.
Whilst negotiations between the couple who had the restaurant and the lawyers acting for the landlord were ongoing, the couple had split up.
The wife attended a meeting with the lawyers on her own and without legal representation. She did not at any point request that the discussions be conducted on a without prejudice basis. When her admission that there had been arrears of rent was used as evidence as to why the landlord should be granted possession of the premises, the question arose as to whether her admissions were without prejudice or not.
The landlord's lawyers argued that the purpose of the meeting had not been to reach a settlement but rather for her to find out what was happening as regards the proceedings. For a disclosure to be privileged, it must be made in discussions aimed at reaching a settlement of a dispute.
The without prejudice point was rejected by the judge at the first hearing dealing with the lease but accepted on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court asking what purpose the meeting could have served other than as an attempt to reach a settlement of the dispute.
The Court took the view that the dissection of privileged and non-privileged components of communications was unwarranted and that the existence of the without prejudice rule was based on a desire to achieve a just outcome.
The Court ruled that the initial issues would have to be retried without the privileged information being given in evidence.