Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors

Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors

The court held that the communications in question, including the alleged threats, did not amount to unambiguous impropriety and thus remained protected by without prejudice privilege. The threats were found to be no more than hard-fought negotiating tactics in the context of commercial litigation, and the evidence did not meet the high threshold required to lift privilege. The application was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Alan Holyoake; Claimant/respondent: Hotblack Holdings Limited; Defendant/applicant: Nicholas Anthony Candy; Defendant/applicant: Christian Peter Candy; Defendant/applicant: Richard Steven Williams; Defendant/applicant: Steven Miles Smith; Defendant/applicant: Timothy James Dean; Defendant/applicant: CPC Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation (interim Application) / Interim Application for Admissibility of Without Prejudice Materials
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Unambiguous Impropriety Exception, Admissibility of Evidence, Interim Applications, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Evidence Commercial Law Without Prejudice Privilege Unambiguous Impropriety Exception Admissibility of Evidence Interim Applications Costs Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Alan Holyoake

Claimant/respondent

Hotblack Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Nicholas Anthony Candy

Defendant/applicant

Christian Peter Candy

Defendant/applicant

Richard Steven Williams

Defendant/applicant

Steven Miles Smith

Defendant/applicant

Timothy James Dean

Defendant/applicant

CPC Group Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation (interim Application) / Interim Application for Admissibility of Without Prejudice Materials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain communications are admissible as evidence under the unambiguous impropriety exception to the without prejudice rule
  2. 2 Whether threats made during settlement negotiations amounted to unambiguous impropriety
  3. 3 Whether an intermediary (Mr Browne) was authorised to act for the claimants and whether his communications were privileged

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the communications in question, including the alleged threats, did not amount to unambiguous impropriety and thus remained protected by without prejudice privilege. The threats were found to be no more than hard-fought negotiating tactics in the context of commercial litigation, and the evidence did not meet the high threshold required to lift privilege. The application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application for admissibility of without prejudice materials is dismissed.
  • Costs of 27th June assessed at £25,000 plus VAT on the standard basis.