0370 270 6000

UYB Ltd v British Railways Board, Court of Appeal, 20 October 2000

27 November 2000
The issues

Without prejudice negotiations – whether without prejudice draft admissible in evidence

The facts

UYB Limited had served a report dealing with quantum 2 years before serving the final report. The Defendant argued at Trial that is does not know the quantum of the claim until the final report was served in December 1998. Consequentially the Judge disallowed interest for a period from a period from the issue of the Writ to the date when the final report was served.

The Claimant appealed on the basis that in reality, in the course of without prejudice negotiations a draft had been served which had given the Defendant an idea of the quantum of the claim.

The decision

The draft report was a draft. The figures stated were different from those ultimately disclosed. The Judge was right to have no regard to without prejudice report. Public policy encouraged the settlement of disputes before resorting to law. Such negotiations were made with prejudice to future litigation. Therefore no reference could be made to earlier draft without prejudice documents at Trial.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up