Writing 'without prejudice' on a letter
Discussion
My evil ex wrote this on a recent letter to me where she has stated that she will ignore a Court ruling if she doesn't get what she wants. The without prejudice statement seems to infer that I cannot submit this to a Court if she decides to ignore the ruling. Is that really the case?
All depends in what exact context it is used. Without prejudice, it reads like she is using it incorrectly.
http://sullivanlaw.ca/ask-a-lawyer-what-does-witho...
http://sullivanlaw.ca/ask-a-lawyer-what-does-witho...
it's usually used in correspondence that you don't want put before a court / tribunal e.g. if you are in the middle of dispute and you are talking about a negotiated settlement, then you wouldn't want the other side to submit the negotiations as evidence and say "look they must be wrong as they are trying to pay me off, thus admitting fault"
Can't really say if it was right to use it here without any background information. My instinct is that its not correct though, as compliance with the court order is a matter between her and the court (although i suspect you have an interest in seeing it complied with)
Can't really say if it was right to use it here without any background information. My instinct is that its not correct though, as compliance with the court order is a matter between her and the court (although i suspect you have an interest in seeing it complied with)
It's only use is so that you make an offer to settle a dispute out of court, without the offer being taken as any admission of liability - https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-107-7...
"The without prejudice (WP) rule will generally prevent statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, whether made in writing or orally, from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interest of the party which made them"
It definitely doesn't have a blanket meaning of "you can't show this to the court", which is what I infer from your question.
"The without prejudice (WP) rule will generally prevent statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, whether made in writing or orally, from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interest of the party which made them"
It definitely doesn't have a blanket meaning of "you can't show this to the court", which is what I infer from your question.
s off, I'm ignoring the court order" vs "if we can agree to go back to court and do X, then I'm willing to do Y".IANAL, Try googling "without prejudice unambiguous impropriety."
Without prejudice is used to cover negotiations before court action. If we had an accident, you stated that it was my fault and demanded compo, I may make a without prejudice offer to pay you off. By making the offer without prejudice, I'm not admitting liability.
I don't think it can be extended to cover improper threats, which is what you describe. Ultimately you should seek paid and insured advice, because I'll be the first to admit, I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Without prejudice is used to cover negotiations before court action. If we had an accident, you stated that it was my fault and demanded compo, I may make a without prejudice offer to pay you off. By making the offer without prejudice, I'm not admitting liability.
I don't think it can be extended to cover improper threats, which is what you describe. Ultimately you should seek paid and insured advice, because I'll be the first to admit, I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Thanks guys, that seems to make sense. TBH I have written back to her and told her I look forward to showing her letter to a judge. That should make her think.
Her letter basically said 'I legally agreed to give you £XXXXX, but I think you owe me £XXXXX for something else so if you give me that I'll give you the legally agreed amount' (plus thinly veiled threats as usual). I wonder if somehow she things that is some form of negotiation. Mental cow.
Her letter basically said 'I legally agreed to give you £XXXXX, but I think you owe me £XXXXX for something else so if you give me that I'll give you the legally agreed amount' (plus thinly veiled threats as usual). I wonder if somehow she things that is some form of negotiation. Mental cow.
A good faith offer to settle an extant dispute is subject to the without prejudice privilege. A letter such as the OP describes is not.
OP, matrimonial litigation usually produces only unhappiness. You would do better getting a lawyer and attempting mediation than engaging in confrontation with your ex, regardless of who is at fault.
OP, matrimonial litigation usually produces only unhappiness. You would do better getting a lawyer and attempting mediation than engaging in confrontation with your ex, regardless of who is at fault.
Frimley111R said:
My evil ex wrote this on a recent letter to me where she has stated that she will ignore a Court ruling if she doesn't get what she wants. The without prejudice statement seems to infer that I cannot submit this to a Court if she decides to ignore the ruling. Is that really the case?
Without Prejudice applies to genuine attempts to settle a matter. Do note that if you sent a letter which was a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute that did not have the title "without prejudice" it would still apply, it is the content that matters.Unless her letter was a genuine attempt to settle a dispute then it is not without prejudice. You may not simply apply the title to anything IYSWIM.
Something written on letters by idiot's trying to look threatening and clever. As explained it's worthless used in the wrong context other than to make an idiot look idiotic. If necessary you can use that to show the court how much of an arse she is being.
Better still follow breadvans advice above.
Better still follow breadvans advice above.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff