Admissibility in forthcoming trial of correspondence said to be without prejudice: ‘That relates to the without prejudice negotiations that led to the settlement of the arbitration between Webinvest and the third party. The judge held that Mr Shlosberg had waived any privilege relating to those negotiations. I disagree. All he said in his evidence was that he told Mr Gayduk that an offer had been made and that his lawyers thought it was a good one. Even if he had purported to waive privilege it was not his to waive. The privilege is a joint privilege to which the third party is also entitled and there is no evidence that the third party has consented to waiver. If the without prejudice privilege has not been waived, on what basis is Avonwick entitled to disclosure? Mr Berry says that he is not seeking to rely on admissions made in the course of negotiations and that if he is not seeking to rely on admissions, then the decision in Muller v Linsley and Mortimer [1996] 1 PNLR requires disclosure.’
Judges:
Lewison LJ
Citations:
[2014] EWCA Civ 1436
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Briggs and Others v Clay and Others ChD 25-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application to exclude evidence said to be ‘without prejudice’ The case concerned a pension scheme for employees within a group of companies. In a prior action by way of a Part 8 claim brought by the trustees of the scheme, the court had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.538906