Abbey National - I Won..I think??greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread
I have received this morning a letter from the solicitors saying they have thoroughly reviewed the case and there appears to be certain irregularities in their mortgage case. They advise me that strictly without prejudice that it is not the clients intention to pursue the matter any further.
What does that, "without prejudice" mean exactly? Does it give them the opportunity to pursue me later? Or should I take it that they won't be coming after this bogus claim anyway?
thanks for your help. Rick
-- Rick Craven (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 02, 2003
Abbey are dropping cases left, right & centre, they know they can't win, and besides, with them currently lending up to 7 times income multiple, it won't be too long before they have themselves a new batch of cases.
-- anon (email@example.com), June 02, 2003.
As I understand it with or without the words "without prejudice" the lender could still pursue you at a later date if they so wish (subject to limitation period/MJOs/acknowledgements etc).
-- M Amos (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 05, 2003.
Solicitors use W.P. all the time, in the belief that what's being offered or stated can't be held against them at a later date.
There was a W.P. case reported in the Times on Tuesday the 3rd June 2003, in the Law report section. (Shows how sad I've become, I used to read the news) An offer was made with the W.P. clause, and then the claimant asked for the W.P. document to be used in proceedings. I think the appeal judge ruled that the W.P. was not legally binding. In any case he allowed the W.P. document to be used.
A case last year decided that unless the other side agreed that W.P. applied, then it had no meaning. By discussing the offer being made, there was not an actual agreement that W.P. applied.
I'm not a legal bod, but that's how I understood the arguments.
No doubt a solicitor will have a different point of view, but its a judge who decides on such matters, not a solicitor.
-- MLJ (email@example.com), June 05, 2003.
This is a solicitor's point of view:
I have looked up the Times case reported on 3 June (Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi (CA)).
It related to a meeting where it was agreed that the oral discussions were 'without prejudice'.
The CA held that without prejudice discussions could be admitted in later proceedings where there had been unambigious impropriety and a very clear case of abuse of a priviliged occasion. On the facts, the CA held that the discussions were not admissable in later proceedings as there was no record or agreement about what had been said, and because the claimant had not cited any evidence to show that there had been an unambigious impropriety on the defendant's behalf
The court made it clear that it did not want to weaken the without prejudice rule: 'To allow such admissions in evidence flew in the face of the public policy justification for the without prejudice rule'.
This case followed a house of Lords decision in Unilever v proctor and Gamble  1 WLR 2436, 2444A.
(I have only read the Times report and not the case transcript).
I am not aware of the 'case last year' that MLJ refers to.
-- M Amos (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 13, 2003.