Tom Jones Intl Ltd v Att Gen
| Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
| Judge | (Henderson, J.) |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 2010 |
| Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
| Date | 16 August 2010 |
(Henderson, J.)
Attorneys: Broadhurst Barristers for the plaintiff; Conyers Dill & Pearman for the defendant.
Evidence-privilege-‘without prejudice’ communications
Under the ‘without prejudice’ privilege, written or oral communications made for the purpose of a sincere attempt to settle a dispute will ordinarily not be admitted as evidence. This is based partly on implied agreement between the parties (although this is not entirely satisfactory, since it will also apply to a first, unsolicited communication) and partly on the public policy consideration of encouraging settlement negotiations by promoting the honest exchange of positions with a minimum of posturing. It also prevents the need for compulsory disclosure to third parties of communications made in the course of negotiation (Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1989] A.C. 1280, applied). A communication is covered by the privilege if it is part of the negotiations in the course of a dispute in which litigation is pending, threatened, contemplated or might reasonably be contemplated should the negotiations fail (Unilever plc v. Procter & Gamble Co., [2000] 1 W.L.R. 2436, applied; Barnetson v. Framlington Group Ltd., [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2443, applied). Communications by an agent on behalf of a party to the dispute are covered, though communications to or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gweneth E. Henning as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Ashton Henning Plaintiff v Margaret Ann Henning Defendant
...[1999] EWCA Civ 3027, and to the decision of Henderson J in the local decision of Tom Jones International Limited v Attorney General [2010] (2) CILR Note 3, where Unilever was applied. It was submitted that for the privilege to be waived, both parties to the communications would have to do ......