8 Hill Street St Helier Jersey JE2 4UA

Print This Post Print This Post

What does Without Prejudice mean in dispute resolution and litigation – a brief guide

Procedure | Dispute Resolution & Litigation

One of the cornerstones of the way Courts approach disputes is that parties should be encouraged to seek to resolve any disputes via alternative routes, such as mediation and negotiation. To encourage this, certain communications between the parties, which are genuinely aimed at achieving settlement, whether made in writing or given orally, are deemed as being sent without prejudice.

Protection in negotiation

In simple terms, without prejudice correspondence cannot be given in the case as evidence by the other party, should the matter proceed to litigation, in order to gain a more favourable settlement. This protection allows parties to make offers and statements that they might otherwise opt against, without such being used against them at any full trial.

It is important to note that correspondence may often be headed with the words ‘without prejudice subject to costs’. In such cases, relevant statements and correspondence may be given in evidence after the main judgment is given in the case when the Court is adjudication on costs.

Naturally, there are exceptions to this rule; these are obviously limited, as an extensive list of such exceptions would mean that parties would have to continuously consider whether any statement they were making could in fact be adduced in court, thus undermining the very basis for the rule. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court added a fresh exception in the case of Oceanbulk Shipping v TMT [2010] UKSC 44.


The exceptions that existed prior to Oceanbulk Shipping are stated below: –

  •  Where preventing the giving of the statement in evidence would act to cover-up ‘unambiguous impropriety’. This is of particular relevance if, say, the evidence would show criminal behavior, such as fraud or blackmail;
  •  in cases where the Court is being asked for directions in a matter where it has oversight of, e.g., an insolvency. In such circumstances, the general principle is that the Court needs to be apprised of all relevant information;
  • where an agreement should be set aside due to misrepresentation, such ‘without prejudice’ evidence can be given to prove this;
  • to prove whether or not an agreement between the parties has actually been reached, in the event that one party claims no settlement was actually reached;
  • where there is a delay in a case, the Court may require that evidence be produced of genuine settlement negotiations having been undertaken;
  • if there are no public policy grounds that would justify excluding the evidence; and
  • where rectification of an agreement is required – it may be necessary to establish clearly the stage at which an agreement was reached and this may require the remedy of rectification.

The Oceanbulk Shipping case

In simple terms, following certain agreements between the parties (specifically ‘Froward Freight Agreements’) TMT owed at least $40m to Oceanbulk with significant further potential exposure. Pursuant to this, the parties decided to enter into negotiations in an attempt to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Naturally, due to the possibility of matters ultimately ending up before the Court, the parties carried out such negotiations on a without prejudice basis. The parties arrived at a settlement and drew up a written agreement recording such.

The litigation in the instant case arose subsequent to an allegation by Oceanbulk that TMT had broken the agreement, and the dispute centred on a matter of interpretation of certain clauses. To support their case, TMT wished to raise statements made during the negotiations as evidence in favour of their interpretation. The Court held that it is permissible to refer to such evidence for the purpose of establishing what was agreed. In reaching the decision, the Court considered that, even though such negotiations were without prejudice, as they ultimately resulted in a contract being formed it is necessary that evidence of such negotiations can be given, in order to interpret the resulting contract.

Effect in Jersey

Whilst this is a decision taken by the Supreme Court in the UK, Jersey will in general follow developments in the English law, as regards matters that are communicated without prejudice. Whilst it remains to be seen how this exception will develop, practitioners involved in any such attempts at settlement, which may ultimately be subject to the jurisdiction of the Royal Court, would do well to bear this new exception in mind, and to consider the fact that they cannot rely on the without prejudice rule to withhold evidence that may point to an unfavourable interpretation of the contents of any agreement that is made between parties.

For advice, assistance or further information regarding dispute resolution and litigation please do not hesitate to call 630530 or email us on litigation@parslowsjersey.com

Please note that the information provided on this website is for general information purposes only and is designed to provide you with an outline of the legal services we offer.  Whilst we endeavour to ensure our information is correct and useful, we make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information offered.  Information on our website does not constitute legal advice and Parslows Jersey accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising out of, or in connection with, the information found in this website.  Please consult a lawyer at Parslows Jersey in the event that you require professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of the same, is correct.

Parslows Jersey are here to help with all your legal queries call us today on +44 (0) 1534 630530

Or email us on enquiries@parslowsjersey.com