Williams v Hull [2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch) (19 November 2009)

Williams v Hull [2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch) (19 November 2009)

The letter dated 19 October 2007 from Mr Hull to Ms Williams was a negotiating document protected by the without prejudice rule. The judge below erred in dissecting the letter and failing to treat it as a whole, and in not giving due weight to its express marking and the context of ongoing negotiations. There was no unambiguous impropriety justifying admission of the letter as evidence. Accordingly, the letter is inadmissible at trial.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2844 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Robin Jeanne Williams; Defendant/appellant: Anthony Steven Hull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence (without Prejudice Communication)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Trusts of Land, Cohabitation Disputes
Civil Procedure Property Law Without Prejudice Rule Admissibility of Evidence Trusts of Land Cohabitation Disputes

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Jeanne Williams

Claimant/respondent

Anthony Steven Hull

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence (without Prejudice Communication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter marked 'without prejudice' is protected by the without prejudice rule and inadmissible as evidence at trial
  2. 2 Whether the letter is admissible on the ground of unambiguous impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The letter dated 19 October 2007 from Mr Hull to Ms Williams was a negotiating document protected by the without prejudice rule. The judge below erred in dissecting the letter and failing to treat it as a whole, and in not giving due weight to its express marking and the context of ongoing negotiations. There was no unambiguous impropriety justifying admission of the letter as evidence. Accordingly, the letter is inadmissible at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The letter dated 19 October 2007 is inadmissible as evidence at trial.
  • The order of Her Honour Judge Marshall QC permitting its admission is set aside.