The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section 70 relying on the statements. The judge held the statement inadmissible.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. Where there had been protracted discussions and negotiations between the parties on a without prejudice basis, it would be quite wrong to take words spoken during such meetings as constituting any threat of infringement proceedings or challenge to a patent so as to found an action for damages. The policy represented by the first statutory threats provision (section 32 of the 1833 Act) was to stop patentees who were (in Pope’s words about Addison) ‘willing to wound but afraid to strike’ from holding the sword of Damocles above another’s head. The modern cases show that the protection of admissions against interest is the most important practical effect of the rule, but to dissect out identifiable admissions and withhold protection from the rest of without prejudice communications (except for a special reason) would not only create huge practical difficulties but would be contrary to the underlying objective of giving protection to the parties to speak freely and to compromise, admitting certain facts. Parties cannot speak freely at a without prejudice meeting if they must constantly monitor every sentence, with lawyers or patent agents sitting at their shoulders as minders.
Robert Walker LJ said that admissions against interest should be protected under the without prejudice rule, ‘In those circumstances I consider that this court should, in determining this appeal, give effect to the principles stated in the modern cases, especially Cutts v Head, Rush and Tompkins and Muller. Whatever difficulties there are in a complete reconciliation of these cases, they make clear that the without prejudice rule is founded partly in public policy and partly in the agreement of the parties. They show that the protection of admissions against interest is the most important practical effect of the rule. But to dissect out identifiable admissions and withhold protection from the rest of without prejudice communications (except for a special reason) would not only create huge practical difficulties but would be contrary to the underlying objective of giving protection to the parties in the words of Lord Griffiths in Rush and Tompkins at page 1300:
‘To speak freely about all issues in the litigation both factual and legal when seeking compromise and, for the purposes of establishing a basis of compromise, admitting certain facts.’
The parties cannot speak freely at a without prejudice meeting if they must constantly monitor every sentence, with lawyers or patent agents sitting at their shoulders as minders.’ and ‘Apart from any concluded contract or estoppel, one party may be allowed to give evidence of what the other said or wrote in without prejudice negotiations if the exclusion of the evidence would act as a cloak for perjury, blackmail or other ‘unambiguous impropriety’ (the expression used by Hoffman LJ in Forster v Friedland) . . but this court has, in Forster v Friedland and Fazil Alizadeh v Nikbin . . warned that the exception should be applied only in the clearest cases of abuse of a privileged occasion.’
Robert Walker LJ, Simon Brown LJ, Justice Wilson
Times 04-Nov-1999, Gazette 17-Nov-1999, [1999] I P and T 171, [2000] 1 WLR 2436, [2000] FSR 344, [2000] RPC 344, [1999] EWCA Civ 3027, (2000) 23(1) IPD 23001, [2001] 1 All ER 783
Bailii
Patents Act 1977 70, Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1883 32
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Unilever Plc v The Procter and Gamble Company PatC 24-Feb-1999
Representatives of the Defendant company were said to have asserted, during an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff’s marketing of its product infringed the Defendant’s patent and threatened to bring an action for infringement. . .
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 . .
Cited – Forster v Friedland CA 10-Nov-1992
The defendant admitted that he considered himself honour bound by an agreement, but said that if it came to litigation he would deny any legal obligation. On the facts, this was held to be ‘very far from blackmail’. As an exception to the rule that . .
See Also – Unilever Plc v The Procter and Gamble Company PatC 24-Feb-1999
Representatives of the Defendant company were said to have asserted, during an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff’s marketing of its product infringed the Defendant’s patent and threatened to bring an action for infringement. . .
Cited by:
Cited – L’Oreal (UK) Limited and Another v Johnson and Johnson and Another ChD 7-Mar-2000
The claimant appealed against an order striking out their threat action for trade mark infringement, in respect of the words ‘No Tears’ when used for children’s shampoo.
Held: The court had to consider both the letter and the surrounding . .
Cited – 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 – Prudential Insurance Company of America v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd CA 31-Jul-2003
The appellant sought to restrain the use in proceedings in New Zealand and elsewhere of ‘without prejudice’ documents discovered in court proceedings here.
Held: It was not sensible to elide the distinction between the two sources of . .
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 . .
Cited – Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd CA 14-Jul-2004
Walker v Wilshire still Good Law
After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations . .
Cited – Wilkinson v West Coast Capital and others ChD 22-Jul-2005
A claim was to be made about actions of unfair prejudice by the directors against the minor shareholder. The court considered a preliminary issue as to the admissibility of evidence, including without prejudice correspondence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cintec International Ltd v John Humphries Parkes (T/A Dell Explosives) and Another ChD 2-Oct-2003
The defendants wanted to defend their patent against a possible infringement. There were negotiations, following which the defendants wrote claiming damages or licence fees. The claimant asserted that the letter constituted a threat. The defendant . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid CA 22-Jul-2005
The claimant sought recovery of a shortfall having sold the defendant’s house for a sum insufficient to clear the mortgage debt, and produced two letters which they claimed acknowledged the debt and restarted the limitation period running. The . .
Cited – Hall and Another v Pertemps Group Ltd and Another ChD 21-Nov-2005
It was alleged that in the course of mediation one party had made a threat against the other. The current application related to a report of the mediation made to a third party, and the court was asked to take account of that threat in assessing . .
Cited – Bradford 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 . .
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Cited – BNP Paribas v A Mezzotero EAT 30-Mar-2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, . .
Cited – Ofulue and Another v Bossert HL 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under . .
Cited – Williams 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 . .
Cited – Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd CA 15-Feb-2010
The parties had settled their disagreement, but now disputed the interpretation of the settlement. The defendant sought to be allowed to give in evidence correspondence leading up to the settlement which had been conducted on a without prejudice . .
Cited – Brodie v Ward (T/A First Steps Nursery) EAT 7-Feb-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – without prejudice letter
The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal was correct in excluding a solicitor’s without prejudice letter in other proceedings which the Appellant . .
Cited – Best Buy Co Inc and Another v Worldwide Sales Corp. Espana Sl ChD 8-Jul-2010
The claimant accused the defendant of making threats in connection with trade mark applications. The claimants operated under US trade marks associated with ‘Best Buy’ and sought similar marks in Europe. The defendant company traded under a similar . .
Cited – Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd and Others SC 27-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether facts which (a) are communicated between the parties in the course of without prejudice negotiations and (b) would, but for the without prejudice rule, be admissible as part of the factual matrix or surrounding . .
Cited – Avonwick 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 . .
Cited – Berkeley Square Holdings and Others v Lancer Property Asset Management Ltd and Others ChD 1-May-2020
Application by the Claimants to strike out parts of the Defence as an abuse of process and an application by the Defendants to amend their Defence. However, both applications turn on the question whether certain facts on which the Defendants seek to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.90058
