Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The ‘without prejudice’ rule is commonly used to incentivise parties to reach a speedy settlement out of court without fear of making concessions in their own case should the dispute end up in court. If the settlement agreement is not agreed, the court should not even know that it was made.
However the problem comes though when the offer to settle is accepted, court battle averted, only for the parties to later question what its terms really meant. Should ‘without prejudice’ communications be available to determine what the parties meant when they reached the settlement agreement?
According to the Supreme Court recently they should.
This decision could have the effect of either making parties more wary in their without prejudice negotiations, which would be a shame if it prevented settlement, but it certainly means that settlement agreements, once drafted should be checked carefully against the offers on the table.
With its claims to disrupt and transform many areas of our lives, AI is now part of our day to day vocabulary.
View blog
Are you frustrated by Brexit? If so, that’s more than can be said of the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) £13m a year lease at Canary Wharf.
Last week, the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas showcased some emerging consumer technologies - from a sensor which tests food for peanuts to air-bags for your hip.
The Royal Bank of Scotland is current embroiled in a £12billion class action brought by its former shareholders over the bank’s fundraising before its 2008 government bailout.
Partner and Responsible for In House Lawyers
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up