Are you afraid to tell a Solicitor everything? Well now don’t be!
Conversations had with a solicitor, with the aim being to achieve a compromise to a legal dispute, is generally ‘without prejudice’ and any admission made cannot be relied upon in Court.
The usual without prejudice rule generally prevents any statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, whether made in writing or orally, from being put before the Court in evidence of admissions against the interest of the party that has made them.
This issue was recently highlighted when it came before the Court when a landlord of a restaurant had forfeited the lease by re-entering the premises and changing the locks. The tenants denied that their rent was in arrears and claimed that the lease had been wrongly forfeited.
Before the matter came to Court, one of the tenants had twice made appointments with the landlord’s solicitor, during which she was said to have made an admission which was damaging to their case. The landlord sought to rely on this, and the judge at first instance found in favour of the landlord and the tenants were ordered to pay almost £6,000 in outstanding rent. The judge took account of the tenant’s alleged admissions on the basis that her meetings with the solicitor did not benefit from without prejudice privilege.
The tenants appealed to the Court of Appeal where the Appeal Court analysed the extent of that rule in the context of a landlord and tenant dispute. The Appeal Court allowed the tenant’s appeal and found on evidence that the purpose of the meetings was to find some way of settling the litigation dispute. The words the tenant spoke to the landlords solicitor were privileged and, on the face of it, inadmissible in Court.
In the circumstances, the Court directed a retrial of the action before a different Judge.
This means, you can now freely discuss matters with a solicitor, even if that solicitor is not your own solicitor, without the fear of comeback or those discussions being brought before the Court later to be used against the party that made them.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
