Charles Steven Bond & Anor v Denise May Webster & Ors

Charles Steven Bond & Anor v Denise May Webster & Ors

There was insufficient clarity and consensus as to what was said at the meeting to satisfy the demanding test for unambiguous impropriety. The offer made by the claimants' solicitor did not amount to unambiguous impropriety and was within the bounds of permissible settlement conduct. Therefore, the without prejudice privilege applies and the impugned passages must be struck out.

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
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Unambiguous Impropriety Exception, Strike Out Applications, Testamentary Capacity, Inheritance Tax Liability
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Without Prejudice Privilege Unambiguous Impropriety Exception Strike Out Applications Testamentary Capacity Inheritance Tax Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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/trusts / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to without prejudice negotiations in witness statements should be struck out for containing inadmissible material
  2. 2 Whether the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception to without prejudice privilege applies to the 3 August 2021 meeting

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient clarity and consensus as to what was said at the meeting to satisfy the demanding test for unambiguous impropriety. The offer made by the claimants' solicitor did not amount to unambiguous impropriety and was within the bounds of permissible settlement conduct. Therefore, the without prejudice privilege applies and the impugned passages must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

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