(Ontario High Court) The court was asked whether discovery of letters written without prejudice should be permitted so that the parties might explore the question whether they contained admissions of fact which could be taken into account at the trial.
Held: They should. Contrary to popular belief the proposition that the shibboleth ‘without prejudice’ written on a letter protects it from subsequent use as an admission was not accurate: ‘[T]he question to be considered is, what was the view and intention of the party in making the admission; whether it was to concede a fact hypothetically, in order to effect a settlement, or to declare a fact really to exist.’
Judges:
Haines J
Citations:
[1971] 1 OR 737
Cited by:
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Contract, Limitation
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.243125
