A v B & C (Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of evidence) [2013] UKEAT 0092_13_1004 (10 April 2013)

A v B & C (Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of evidence) [2013] UKEAT 0092_13_1004 (10 April 2013)

The 'without prejudice' rule applied to the e-mail of 13 October 2011 because, at that time, A reasonably contemplated litigation if a compromise could not be reached. However, after 27 October 2011, once A knew dismissal was not being contemplated, there was no existing dispute capable of settlement, so the rule did not apply to subsequent documents. Thus, only the 13 October 2011 e-mail is inadmissible; the later documents are admissible, subject to redaction to avoid disclosure of privileged content.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0092_13_1004
Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: B; Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Communications, Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Dismissal, Privilege
Employment Law Evidence Without Prejudice Communications Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Dismissal 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

B

Respondent

C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain communications between the parties were protected by the 'without prejudice' rule and thus inadmissible as evidence in unfair dismissal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The 'without prejudice' rule applied to the e-mail of 13 October 2011 because, at that time, A reasonably contemplated litigation if a compromise could not be reached. However, after 27 October 2011, once A knew dismissal was not being contemplated, there was no existing dispute capable of settlement, so the rule did not apply to subsequent documents. Thus, only the 13 October 2011 e-mail is inadmissible; the later documents are admissible, subject to redaction to avoid disclosure of privileged content.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The e-mail of 13 October 2011 is inadmissible as evidence.
  • The attendance note of 27 October 2011 and subsequent documents are admissible, subject to agreed redactions to prevent disclosure of privileged content from the 13 October 2011 e-mail.