Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Williams v Hull [2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : williams-v-hull-2009-ewhc-2844-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 26, 2009, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 89283

(Chancery Division; Arnold J; 19 November 2009)

The woman's case was that the property was owned according to terms set out in a draft deed of co-ownership, albeit that the deed had never been executed; the man's case was that it had been mutually understood that, even though the woman had contributed the bulk of the purchase price, the couple would share the property equally. The woman sought to introduce into evidence a letter from the man to her, which was marked 'without prejudice' and which had been a response to a letter from her to him, also marked 'without prejudice'. The man's letter made it clear that he accepted that his beneficial interest in the property had been only 7% at the time the property was purchased, but that it had risen to 12% under the terms of the draft deed of co-ownership. The judge considered that the letter was admissible, firstly because it was not truly a without prejudice communication, and secondly because even as a without prejudice communication it would have been admissible on the ground of unambiguous impropriety. The man appealed.

The man's appeal was allowed. It was not correct to dissect communication between parties into parts unless it was concerned with clearly distinct subjects. The letter was a negotiating document protected by the without prejudice rule. It was not necessary for a communication to contain a concession or offer of compromise to be a negotiating document; it was sufficient that the document evinced a genuine desire to negotiate a settlement of an actual or potential dispute. Without prejudice did not mean 'without prejudice to my open position', it meant 'without prejudice to my position in any subsequent proceedings. While there was an apparent inconsistency between statements in the man's letter and the man's pleaded case, it was not sufficient to establish unambiguous impropriety; there was a serious risk of perjury, but that was not enough to justify admitting a without prejudice document.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from