The privileged few: practitioners and litigants must take ADR and the CPR into account before using without prejudice privilege, or face costs
Series: Solicitors' Journal ; 147(2) 17 January 2003, 43-44(2)Publication details: 2003Subject(s):- CIVIL LITIGATION
- DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE
- WITHOUT PREJUDICE
- RUSH AND TOMPKINS LTD V GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
- PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD V PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AMERICA
- UNILEVER PLC V PROCTOR AND GAMBLE CO
- SOMATRA V SINCLAIR ROCHE AND TEMPLEY
- DUNNETT V RAILTRACK PLC
- CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66423 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121580-1001 |
The principle of without prejudice privilege (WPP) is difficult to apply. Errors are often made when it is used inappropriately or where 'privileged' correspondence is wrongly excluded from evidence. Mistakes can be avoided by considering the background and rationale of the privilege and its exceptions and function in litigation. Case law.