How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ben Jones Your Own Question
Ben Jones
Ben Jones, UK Lawyer
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 48193
Experience:  Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
29905560
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ben Jones is online now

Can ignorance of the term Without Prejudice negate the r

Resolved Question:

Can ignorance of the term 'Without Prejudice' negate the rule
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Ben Jones replied 3 years ago.

Ben Jones :

Hello, my name is XXXXX XXXXX it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today. What was the nature of the conversation?

Customer:

It concerned an issue regarding a franchise agreement

Ben Jones :

and what was discussed?

Customer:

I am a franchisee the other party the franchisor. I am in dispute with the franchisor and we were discussing a way forward. He made various unprofessional remarks regarding other franchisees and also questioned me in depth about a scheme I have regarding another business with a view to a joint venture. He then abruptly finished the meeting.

Ben Jones :

And how does he intend not to use this 'in law' as you said?

Customer:

My understanding is that I cannot use this as evidence of his bad faith or mention the content in court. Is this correct?

Ben Jones :

The term ‘without prejudice’ is often used loosely and out of context and many parties believe that as long as they attach this to correspondence or conversations they are having, it automatically protects it from being used in court at a later stage. This is untrue and to be protected as being without prejudice, the correspondence has to be a part of a genuine attempt to try and settle an ongoing dispute. As long as such genuine attempts are made, it then means that the parties will not use this correspondence or conversations in court if the matter proceeds there. The purpose of this is that the parties should be able to try and settle their differences without the fear of these discussions being brought as evidence against them in court. Saying that, even genuinely marked correspondence can still be used in court as evidence of misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence or ass evidence of perjury, blackmail or other unambiguous impropriety.

Customer:

Thank you

Ben Jones and other Law Specialists are ready to help you