Willers v Joyce & Ors

Willers v Joyce & Ors

The contested material is admissible solely on the basis of a mutual agreement between the parties to treat the February 2017 settlement negotiations as 'Without Prejudice Save As to Costs', permitting deployment of the material in argument about costs.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Willers; Defendant/applicant/executor of Albert Gubay, Deceased: Elena Joyce; Defendant/applicant/executor of Albert Gubay, Deceased: John Nugent; Respondent/lawyer: De Cruz Solicitors (A Firm); Respondent/lawyer: De Cruz Solicitors Limited; Respondent/barrister: Hugo Page QC; Respondent/barrister: Adam Chichester-Clark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence for Costs Application
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Costs Applications, Waiver of Privilege
Civil Procedure Evidence Without Prejudice Rule Admissibility of Evidence Costs Applications Waiver of Privilege

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Willers

Claimant

Elena Joyce

Defendant/applicant/executor of Albert Gubay, Deceased

John Nugent

Defendant/applicant/executor of Albert Gubay, Deceased

De Cruz Solicitors (A Firm)

Respondent/lawyer

De Cruz Solicitors Limited

Respondent/lawyer

Hugo Page QC

Respondent/barrister

Adam Chichester-Clark

Respondent/barrister

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the 'Without Prejudice' rule apply to the contested material?
  2. 2 Is there a recognised exception or principled extension to the rule that allows admissibility?
  3. 3 Has there been a waiver or agreement permitting use of the material in costs proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The contested material is admissible solely on the basis of a mutual agreement between the parties to treat the February 2017 settlement negotiations as 'Without Prejudice Save As to Costs', permitting deployment of the material in argument about costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The contested material is admissible for the purposes of argument about costs, pursuant to the mutual agreement between the parties.