Forster v Friedland: CA 10 Nov 1992

The defendant admitted that he considered himself honour bound by an agreement, but said that if it came to litigation he would deny any legal obligation. On the facts, this was held to be ‘very far from blackmail’. As an exception to the rule that without prejudice revelations are not admissible, there is the situation where a statement can be admitted because of an ‘unambiguous impropriety’ – ‘the value of the without prejudice rule would be seriously impaired if its protection could be removed from anything less than unambiguous impropriety.’
Hoffmann LJ
Unreported, 10 November 1992, Transcript No 1052 of 1992
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedUnilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .
CitedSavings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken CA 14-Nov-2003
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .
CitedBNP Paribas v A Mezzotero EAT 30-Mar-2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 January 2021; Ref: scu.188464