(1905) The plaintiff, an artist had a judgment against him by a picture frame maker. It had been entered by consent under an agreement with the plaintiff’s solicitor that no publicity should be given to the result of the action. Nevertheless, the defendants published the judgment in Stubbs’ Weekly Gazette and the plaintiff said that their canvaser had gone round to tradesmen pointing out the importance of subscribing to the Gazette, directing their attention to the plaintiff’s name and saying that he could not be worthy of credit. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of andpound;25. As part of his case the plaintiff had relied upon the contract between himself and the solicitor for the plaintiff in the City of London Court action that the judgment should not be made public. This contract was contained in two without prejudice letters. The offer was contained in a letter from the plaintiff and the acceptance in a letter from the solicitor. The judge permitted the second letter to be put in evidence and read but refused to admit the first letter which had contained admissions by the plaintiff that he was absolutely insolvent.
Held: The first letter was to be read. Matthew LJ said that in his opinion ‘a letter written with regard to an action and marked ‘without prejudice’ was only privileged for the purpose of that particular action.’
Judges:
Sir Richard Henn Collins MR, Matthew LJ
Citations:
Times 28-Feb-1905
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.253694