Cresta Estates Limited & Ors v MPB Developments Limited & Ors

Cresta Estates Limited & Ors v MPB Developments Limited & Ors

The Respondents waived without prejudice privilege over the November 2022 discussions by partially deploying their content in witness evidence and by conduct, and the February 2024 proposal was not covered by without prejudice privilege as there was no dispute and the letter was not marked as such. Therefore, the disputed paragraphs in the witness statement are admissible.

Parties
Petitioner: Cresta Estates Limited; Petitioner: Luxor Properties Limited; Petitioner: Stanbreck Properties Ltd; Respondent: MPB Developments Limited; Respondent: Paul Hilton; Respondent: Matthew Welsh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Petition / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application to strike out paragraphs refused; disputed evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Admissibility of Evidence
Insolvency Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege Waiver of Privilege Admissibility of Evidence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cresta Estates Limited

Petitioner

Luxor Properties Limited

Petitioner

Stanbreck Properties Ltd

Petitioner

MPB Developments Limited

Respondent

Paul Hilton

Respondent

Matthew Welsh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Petition / Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of a witness statement referring to without prejudice discussions and proposals are admissible in evidence
  2. 2 Whether without prejudice privilege has been waived by the Respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents waived without prejudice privilege over the November 2022 discussions by partially deploying their content in witness evidence and by conduct, and the February 2024 proposal was not covered by without prejudice privilege as there was no dispute and the letter was not marked as such. Therefore, the disputed paragraphs in the witness statement are admissible.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out paragraphs refused; disputed evidence admitted.

Orders

  • Paragraphs of Mr. Erlich's witness statement referring to the November 2022 discussions and the February 2024 proposal are admissible.
  • Transcript of the November 2022 discussion is admissible as to its contents.