South Shropshire District Council v Amos: CA 1986

Lord Justice Parker said that the use of the words ‘without prejudice’ prima facie meant that a letter was intended to be a part of negotiation. A letter which purported to initiate some sort of negotiation (‘an opening shot’) is not necessarily excluded from the privilege. Negotiations have to begin somewhere. The protection under the rule ‘attaches to all documents which are marked ‘without prejudice’ and form part of negotiations, whether or not they are themselves offers, unless the privilege is defeated on some other ground.’ Where a letter was marked ‘without prejudice’, ‘This prima facie means that it was intended to be a negotiating document.’


Parker LJ


[1987] 1 All ER 340, [1986] 1 WLR 1271


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
CitedWilliams v Hull ChD 19-Nov-2009
The parties had bought a house together, but disputed the shares on which it was held. The appeal was on the basis that a without prejudice letter had been redacte and then wrongly admitted as not in fact without prejudice, an as an unambiguous . .
CitedAvonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another ChD 10-Oct-2014
Application by the claimant that certain correspondence between the parties and their solicitors in April-May 2014 should be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that most of it was headed ‘without prejudice and subject to contract’. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259700