This case highlights an important exception to the general rule that without prejudice correspondence is inadmissible in court. The decision in Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB) reinforces the principle that the without prejudice rule is not absolute and can be overridden in cases of unambiguous impropriety a high threshold designed to prevent the rule from being abused as a shield for dishonesty.
Key Takeaways:
1. Without Prejudice Correspondence and the Unambiguous Impropriety Exception
Ordinarily, without prejudice communications are protected from disclosure to encourage frank settlement discussions.
However, an exception exists where excluding such material would enable perjury, blackmail, or other clear misconduct.
The court will only apply this exception in the clearest cases of abuse.
2. The Nature of the Claimant’sAdmission
The letter from the Claimant’s solicitors contained a proposal that included an admission of fundamental dishonesty.
The claimant argued that this was a conditional admission, dependent on confidentiality terms.
The judge found, however, that this was still a clear acknowledgment of dishonesty and crossed the threshold for unambiguous impropriety.
3. The Court’s Reasoning
The letter was drafted by experienced solicitors, implying careful wording and intent.
The admission went beyond mere negotiation tactics it constituted an acknowledgment that the claimant’s case, as pleaded, was based on falsehoods.
Allowing the claimant to maintain his case while having privately admitted dishonesty would permit an abuse of the court process.
The judge analogized the situation to previous cases (e.g., Merrill Lynch v Raffa) where privilege was lost due to clear impropriety.
4. Practical Implications
This decision serves as a warning to claimants and their solicitors that the without prejuidjce label is not an automatic shield against disclosure. This applies outside the personal injury arena and so has far reaching implications.
If correspondence includes an unequivocal admission of dishonesty, courts may admit it into evidence.
It underscores the need for careful handling of settlement negotiations, particularly where issues of dishonesty arise.
Conclusion
Morris v Williams reiterates the careful balance courts must strike between promoting settlement discussions and preventing abuse of legal privilege. The ruling underscores that while parties are encouraged to negotiate freely, they cannot use without prejudice protection to shield dishonest conduct from the court’s scrutiny.