Optical Express (Southern) Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2003] EWLands ACQ_109_2002 (27 August 2003)

Optical Express (Southern) Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2003] EWLands ACQ_109_2002 (27 August 2003)

The fax dated 5 February 2003, the claim form, and the attached trading figures were all sent in the context of ongoing negotiations to settle a compensation dispute and were marked 'without prejudice.' The without prejudice rule applied to the entire communication, rendering it inadmissible as evidence. The Council's expert report referencing these documents must be withdrawn and amended to exclude privileged material.

Citation
[2003] EWLands ACQ_109_2002
Parties
Claimant: Optical Express (Southern) Limited; Acquiring Authority: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Compensation for Compulsory Purchase / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Evidence and Application for Leave to Lodge Particularised Claim
Outcome
Applications granted on terms of costs.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Without Prejudice Communications, Compulsory Purchase Compensation, Privilege, Case Management Directions
Property Law Compulsory Purchase Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Without Prejudice Communications Compulsory Purchase Compensation Privilege Case Management Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Optical Express (Southern) Limited

Claimant

Birmingham City Council

Acquiring Authority

Procedural Posture

Compensation for Compulsory Purchase / Interlocutory Decision on Admissibility of Evidence and Application for Leave to Lodge Particularised Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fax letter marked 'without prejudice' and accompanying claim and trading figures are admissible as evidence in compensation proceedings for compulsory purchase
  2. 2 Whether negotiations were in progress at the time the documents were sent
  3. 3 Whether trading figures are inadmissible as privileged or are merely factual material

Ratio Decidendi

The fax dated 5 February 2003, the claim form, and the attached trading figures were all sent in the context of ongoing negotiations to settle a compensation dispute and were marked 'without prejudice.' The without prejudice rule applied to the entire communication, rendering it inadmissible as evidence. The Council's expert report referencing these documents must be withdrawn and amended to exclude privileged material.

Court Disposition

Applications granted on terms of costs.

Orders

  • Fax dated 5 February 2003, claim form, and trading figures held inadmissible under the without prejudice rule.
  • Council's expert report to be withdrawn and amended to exclude privileged material.