Bond & Anor v Webster & Ors [2024] EWHC 989 (Ch) (29 April 2024)

Bond & Anor v Webster & Ors [2024] EWHC 989 (Ch) (29 April 2024)

There was insufficient clarity and consensus as to what was said at the without prejudice meeting to satisfy the demanding test for unambiguous impropriety. The offer made by the claimants' solicitor was not abusive or improper in the context of contested litigation, and the privilege attaching to without prejudice negotiations was not displaced.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 989 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Charles Steven Bond; Claimant: Graham Reginald Bond; Defendant: Denise May Webster; Defendant: Karen Joyce Daddy; Defendant: Michael Ian Bond; Defendant: Lindsay Bond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Witness Statement Passages
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Unambiguous Impropriety Exception, Testamentary Capacity, Inheritance Tax Liability, Strike Out Application
Probate Civil Procedure Without Prejudice Privilege Unambiguous Impropriety Exception Testamentary Capacity Inheritance Tax Liability Strike Out Application

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Steven Bond

Claimant

Graham Reginald Bond

Claimant

Denise May Webster

Defendant

Karen Joyce Daddy

Defendant

Michael Ian Bond

Defendant

Lindsay Bond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Witness Statement Passages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception to without prejudice privilege applies to statements made at a settlement meeting between the parties' solicitors.
  2. 2 Whether the relevant passages in the witness statements should be struck out as inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient clarity and consensus as to what was said at the without prejudice meeting to satisfy the demanding test for unambiguous impropriety. The offer made by the claimants' solicitor was not abusive or improper in the context of contested litigation, and the privilege attaching to without prejudice negotiations was not displaced.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The identified passages in the witness statements relating to the without prejudice meeting are struck out.
  • The witness statements are to be redacted and re-served.