Hello, my name is XXXXX XXXXX it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today. What was the nature of the conversation?
It concerned an issue regarding a franchise agreement
and what was discussed?
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.
And how does he intend not to use this 'in law' as you said?
My understanding is that I cannot use this as evidence of his bad faith or mention the content in court. Is this correct?
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.