Home Page > Property Law Library > Property litigation > Without prejudice

Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team

Compromise
Damages in lieu of injunction
Declaration
Tomlin orders
Tribunal procedure
Without prejudice

Current page






Without prejudice

Litigant in person

Admission by tenant in landlord’s solicitor’s office

Sang Kook Suh v Mace (UK) Ltd
[2016] EWCA Civ 4

Summary

The Court of Appeal held that admissions concerning rent arrears which were made by the tenant, a litigant in person, to the landlord’s solicitor during discussions at the landlord’s solicitors’ office were protected by “without prejudice” privilege and were inadmissible at trial.

Facts

A landlord (D) of restaurant premises forfeited its tenants’ lease. The tenants, C1 and C2, issued proceedings as litigants in person, claiming damages for wrongful forfeiture. C1 attended the office of D’s solicitor (S) and proceeded to discuss how the case was progressing. S claimed that C1 admitted during that meeting that she and C2 had been in rent arrears, and that she had discussed with C2 the possibility of D letting her out of the claim without liability for costs if C1 made a statement in support of that admission. A second meeting took place some weeks later, during which S claimed that C1 had reiterated her admission and her intention to get out of the litigation.

D made an application seeking to rely on C1’s statement containing the admission.

First instance

The judge held that C1 had made the admission, despite her later denial of it, and admitted the statement on the basis that the meetings had not been conducted on a “without prejudice” basis. The Cs’ claim was dismissed and they appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues
  • Whether the discussions during the meetings were without prejudice given D’s contention that their purpose was not to negotiate a settlement;
  • Whether privilege should be denied because Cs were using the cloak of “without prejudice” for perjury; and,
  • Whether any privilege had been waived by the Cs’ response to D’s application notice.
Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. In relation to the above issues it held as follows.

(1) The Judge had taken a narrow view of whether the discussions were to be regarded as negotiations genuinely aimed a settlement; a broader view was required (see Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280 and Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] 1 AC 990). Where litigants in persons are concerned, whilst it may be more difficult to determine objectively whether discussions are negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement, in the instant case the only sensible purpose for the meetings must have been to seek a solution to the litigation for C1 – that falls within the meaning of “settlement”. Further, in the instant case, there was no justification for dividing the discussions into parts that were open and parts that were without prejudice, since such an approach is not consistent with the broad view required by the authorities. Thus the entirety of the discussions at the meetings and in C1’s witness statement attracted the protection of privilege and were prima facie inadmissible.

(2) There was no evidence to establish C1 had used the cloak of “without prejudice” discussions for what the judge found to be lies contained in her statement. Whether or not the judge was justified in saying C1 had lied in denying her earlier admissions, the fact that she had later denied those admissions could not be construed as an attempt to use the exclusion of evidence as a cloak for perjury or other impropriety (see Unilever Plc v Proctor & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436).

(3) The question of whether privilege had been waived required an objective evaluation of the Cs’ conduct in the context of the purpose of the “without prejudice” privilege, in order to determine whether it would be unjust for Cs to argue the admissions were privileged. As D had indicated it intended to bring the admission to the Court’s attention and to thereby ignore the privilege, it would be unjust to hold Cs’ unguarded response amounted to a waiver of the privilege itself. Therefore, the Cs were entitled to argue the admissions were privileged and they had not waived such privilege.

The first instance decision could not stand as reliance had been placed on the admissions in deciding whether rent payments had been made.


Back to top

If you would like to subscribe to the full monthly update please click below.

Options
Monthly Updates From £207 + VAT (1 year)
(Free for charities and students)