The judge ruled on the admission of admissions made by the defendant at without prejudice meetings. There was acceptance of Mr Raffa’s involvement in the fraud though he raised the question of collaborators. If he did admit at least his involvement, any defence denying that would be dishonest and supporting it would involve perjury. It was the heart of the litigation. In Unilever the court referred to the exclusion of the evidence as a cloak for perjury. That situation would arise here. The admissions were admissible on that basis. It was a very clear case.
Judges:
Judge Raymond Jack Q.C
Citations:
[2001] 1 LPR 31
Cited by:
Distinguished – Berry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and others CA 22-May-2003
A defendant appealed against an order admitting as evidence, records of ‘without prejudice’ conversations.
Held: Written and oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, . .
Cited – Savings 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.182478