Berry Trade Ltd. & Anor v Moussavi & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 715 (22 May 2003)

Berry Trade Ltd. & Anor v Moussavi & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 715 (22 May 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge applied the wrong legal test by admitting evidence based on a 'serious and substantial risk of perjury' rather than requiring clear unambiguous impropriety. The evidence did not establish unambiguous impropriety, as mere inconsistency between statements made in without prejudice negotiations and pleadings is insufficient. Therefore, the statements made in the without prejudice meetings were inadmissible.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 715
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Berry Trade Ltd. and Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Mohammad Ghadimi-Gheshlaghi (7th Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Exceptions to Privilege, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Evidence Without Prejudice Rule Admissibility of Evidence Exceptions to Privilege Summary Judgment

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Trade Ltd. and Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Ltd.

Claimants/respondents

Mohammad Ghadimi-Gheshlaghi (7th Defendant)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by the 7th Defendant in without prejudice meetings are admissible as evidence under the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception to the without prejudice rule.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge applied the correct legal test for admitting such evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge applied the wrong legal test by admitting evidence based on a 'serious and substantial risk of perjury' rather than requiring clear unambiguous impropriety. The evidence did not establish unambiguous impropriety, as mere inconsistency between statements made in without prejudice negotiations and pleadings is insufficient. Therefore, the statements made in the without prejudice meetings were inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court judge set aside
  • Claimants' application to adduce certain witness statements refused