References: [2001] 1 LPR 31
Coram: Judge Raymond Jack Q.C
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.
This case is cited by:
- Distinguished – Berry Trade Ltd and Another -v- Moussavi and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 715, Times 03-Jun-03, Gazette 17-Jul-03)
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 & Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- Fincken CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1630, Times 25-Nov-03, Gazette 15-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 667, [2004] 1 All ER 1125)
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 . .
