It was alleged that in the course of mediation one party had made a threat against the other. The current application related to a report of the mediation made to a third party, and the court was asked to take account of that threat in assessing costs and whether or not to allow the withdrawal of a Part 36 offer.
Held: The conduct of a mediation was not in all circumstances ‘a no go area.’ The particular use which was now sought to be made of the statements was not within the purposes for which protection was given to without prejudice statements. The more closely the use sought to be made related to the issue sought to be resolved in a without prejudice mediation, the greater the likelihood that the court would grant protection from disclosure. The converse applied here, and the threat was not protected.
Judges:
Lewison J
Citations:
Times 23-Dec-2005, [2005] ADR LR 11/01
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
Cited – Unilever 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.238885
