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 applicant sought to dissect the negotiations to identify what was admissible. That was not acceptable as regards without prejudice correspondence: ‘part of the purpose is to enable parties to conduct themselves freely in negotiations, it is important that things going beyond technical admissions should be caught by the bars imposed by the without prejudice principles. In my view, that will extend to who it was who broke off negotiations and who decided not to go through with an apparently agreed deal (albeit subject to contract). That seems to me to be all part of the freedom of negotiation under the umbrella. ‘
Judges:
Mann J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1606 (Ch)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Vernon v Bosley (1) QBD 1993
The court discussed the extent to which a judge had control over the admission of otherwise admissible evidence: ‘A point comes at which literal admissibility has to yield to the constraints of proportionality . . such proportionality may in any one . .
Cited – Vernon v Bosley (1) CA 8-Apr-1994
Though the judge had a right to exclude admissible evidence, it remained a balancing exercise which came down to being a matter of his discretion. Evidence might not be admitted which would involve ‘inconvenience, expense, delay or oppression’. The . .
Cited – Re Unisoft Group Limited (No 3) ChD 1994
When considering applications to strike out parts of pleadings in a s459 application, the courts had to recognise the need to be careful not to allow the parties to trawl through irrelevant grievances. B The statutory definition of ‘shadow director’ . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Prudential Insurance Co of America ChD 20-Dec-2002
The parties had undertaken negotiations on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. One now sought freedom to rely upon the other’s statements.
Held: There was a need to balance the right to freedom of expression, against the need to protect the rights of . .
Cited – Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
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 . .
Cited by:
See Also – Wilkinson v West Coast Capital and others ChD 21-Dec-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Evidence
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228968
