Thomson v Austen: 1823

Evidence of an admitted cross-debt was in part excluded: ‘We also think that the evidence which was refused was not indicative of any intention to make a compromise, for if it had been so, he would have offered some concession, some sacrifice for the sake of peace; but he simply wishes the matter ended, and then makes an unqualified admission’.
Bayley J
(1823) LJ KB (OS) 99, (1823) 2 Dowl. and Ry. 358
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBradford 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.243133