Matthews v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWLands CON_38_2002 (13 September 2002)

Matthews v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWLands CON_38_2002 (13 September 2002)

The letter of 12 June 1998 and the negotiation history in the expert report are inadmissible under the without prejudice rule because they formed part of settlement negotiations and were not mere assertions of rights or contractual claims. The public policy underlying the rule requires exclusion of such material to encourage frank settlement discussions.

Citation
[2002] EWLands CON_38_2002
Parties
Claimant: Colin Matthews; Claimant: Glenys Matthews; Acquiring Authority: Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Compensation Reference / Pre Trial Review; Application to Exclude Evidence
Outcome
Application granted for exclusion of evidence; claimants awarded costs of the hearing.
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Disturbance Compensation, Negotiation Privilege
Evidence Compulsory Purchase Land Compensation Without Prejudice Rule Admissibility of Evidence Disturbance Compensation Negotiation 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Matthews

Claimant

Glenys Matthews

Claimant

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Acquiring Authority

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Compensation Reference / Pre Trial Review; Application to Exclude Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter marked 'without prejudice' and details of negotiations in an expert report are admissible in evidence in a compensation reference
  2. 2 Whether the letter constituted an assertion of rights or a negotiating document

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 12 June 1998 and the negotiation history in the expert report are inadmissible under the without prejudice rule because they formed part of settlement negotiations and were not mere assertions of rights or contractual claims. The public policy underlying the rule requires exclusion of such material to encourage frank settlement discussions.

Court Disposition

Application granted for exclusion of evidence; claimants awarded costs of the hearing.

Orders

  • Letter of 12 June 1998 is inadmissible in evidence.
  • Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.10 of Mr Pugh's expert report are to be deleted as inadmissible.