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...
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from