Bloss Holdings Pty Ltd v Brackley Industries Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 756

Bloss Holdings Pty Ltd v Brackley Industries Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 756

The handwritten without prejudice document was not admissible under s 131(2)(g) because it did not acknowledge the asserted entitlements but was an offer without admission to honour them as part of an overall settlement, and in any event the case did not present the special circumstance required for the Court to be likely misled as to the existence or contents of an excluded communication or document where those matters were in issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding; Evidentiary Ruling on Tenders of Without Prejudice Material / During Hearing
Outcome
Without prejudice material rejected as not falling within the exception in s 131(2)(g) of the Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['without Prejudice Privilege' 'settlement Negotiations' 'evidence Act 1995 S 131(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 131(2)(g)' 'admissibility of Evidence Likely to Mislead the Court If Excluded']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['without Prejudice Privilege' 'settlement Negotiations' 'evidence Act 1995 S 131(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 131(2)(g)' 'admissibility of Evidence Likely to Mislead the Court If Excluded']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding; Evidentiary Ruling on Tenders of Without Prejudice Material / During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a handwritten document made during settlement negotiations and marked without prejudice was admissible under s 131(2)(g) of the Evidence Act 1995 notwithstanding s 131(1).' 'Whether exclusion of the document was likely to mislead the Court unless the communication or document was adduced to contradict or qualify evidence already adduced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The handwritten without prejudice document was not admissible under s 131(2)(g) because it did not acknowledge the asserted entitlements but was an offer without admission to honour them as part of an overall settlement, and in any event the case did not present the special circumstance required for the Court to be likely misled as to the existence or contents of an excluded communication or document where those matters were in issue.

Court Disposition

Without prejudice material rejected as not falling within the exception in s 131(2)(g) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • ['The relevant material sought to be tendered was rejected.' "Paragraph 22 of Mrs Vermunt's affidavit of 31 July 2003 was not admissible in its current form and fell with the other rejected material at that stage."]