header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010 / Michael Salter , Chris Bryden
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Keeping schtum

new_image_9_4

Chris Bryden & Michael Salter trace the origins & history of the without prejudice rule

As with all litigation, claims to an employment tribunal carry risk. Even what appears to be the strongest claim, or most powerful defence, can be upset by a witness that does not come up to proof, a previously undisclosed document or a tribunal that simply does not agree with the argument on the day. For that reason, combined with the desire to save face, expenses or simply the hassle of attending a tribunal and the difficult experience of submitting to cross-examination, many litigants seek to compromise claims.

Offers to settle

A time-honoured and standard method of seeking to compromise is by the simple means of one side or the other making an offer to settle. Any genuine attempt to compromise proceedings will usually fall within what is commonly known as the “without prejudice” rule (whether or not it is marked as such), meaning that, usually, any such negotiations will not come to the notice of the employment judge and wing-members hearing the case, because they are privileged,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll