UK: High Court Considers Application Of Much-Criticised Exception To Without Prejudice Rule

Last Updated: 21 March 2019
Article by Matthew Eglezos

The High Court has held that the content of "without prejudice" ("WP") communications between the parties to the proceedings was inadmissible, though the fact of the WP negotiations could be referred to. The counterparty to the WP communications would be prejudiced by admission of the communications, and it had neither deployed the content of the WP communications nor put in issue matters which were only justiciable by reference to them: Briggs v Clay [2019] EWHC 102 (Ch).

Whilst the court accepted that the list of exceptions to the WP rule is not closed, it emphasised that any exception must be of the same character or a principled and incremental extension of an existing exception. The court did not regard the present case as falling within the scope of the (much-criticised) exception established in Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] 1 PNLR 74, where the WP communications were relevant to whether a party had reasonably mitigated his loss in negotiating a compromise of separate proceedings, and the party had himself put the reasonableness of the settlement in issue. The court noted that the Muller exception had not previously been held to apply in the case of WP negotiations in the very claim that is before the court, and said that the exception sought to be identified in this case risked significantly undermining the policy of encouraging parties to attempt to settle disputes in multi-party litigation.

The decision provides a careful analysis of previous case law on the scope of the WP rule, and seeks to clarify the extent of the Muller exception which is a matter of some uncertainty. The decision suggests that the exception will come into play where negotiations are relied on to prove some collateral matter and the other party to the WP communications will be unaffected by admission of the WP material, or where the party seeking to assert the privilege has raised an issue which is only justiciable upon proof of the WP communications.

Matthew Eglezos, a Senior Associate (Australia) in our disputes team, outlines the decision below.


The claimants, who were a number of participating employers and the trustees of a pension scheme, brought a claim for damages for professional negligence against the former scheme administrators/professional advisers ("Aon") and the claimants' previous solicitors and counsel (the "Lawyers").

The claim followed separate proceedings between the claimants and the representative beneficiaries of the scheme in which various deeds Aon had prepared for the scheme were held to be invalidly executed and of no effect. The claimants were granted permission to appeal that decision and engaged in WP discussions with the representative beneficiaries seeking to reach a compromise of the appeal. Aon was not involved in these discussions, but was kept informed by the claimants. At the same time, there were negotiations between the claimants and Aon about Aon's potential liability.

The negotiations between the claimants and the representative beneficiaries resulted in an agreement to compromise the appeal (the "Settlement"). No agreement was reached between the claimants and Aon, however, and so the claimants issued their claim seeking compensation for losses arising from Aon's alleged breach of duty.

In its defence to the claim, as well as denying any breach of duty, Aon alleged that the Lawyers were negligent in their conduct of the original claim and the negotiations leading to the Settlement, in failing to raise an argument that certain employees never became a part of the scheme (the "Participating Employer Argument"). Aon claimed that this was a new intervening event which broke the chain of causation between its alleged liability and the claimants' losses. The claimants adopted these arguments and added the Lawyers to the proceedings.

In their defences, as well as denying any negligence, the Lawyers pleaded that Aon was closely involved in both the proceedings against the representative beneficiaries and the negotiations leading to the Settlement and at no point raised the Participating Employer Argument. In support of that pleading, the Lawyers set out in their defences a large amount of detail in relation to the WP negotiations between the claimants and Aon.

Aon sought a declaration that the WP correspondence not be referred to in evidence or in submissions at trial, and that the Lawyers serve replacement versions of the defences which omitted the WP content. There was no dispute that the relevant correspondence was WP; rather, the Lawyers submitted that:

  1. Aon had impliedly waived the WP privilege by making the allegations they had against the Lawyers (the claimants, for their part, had expressly waived their privilege in relation to the same communications).
  2. The Lawyers were entitled to rely on the correspondence by way of an exception to the WP rule, because it would be unjust to require them to face the allegations made against them without being allowed to deploy material that might enable them to answer those allegations, relying on the exception established in Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] 1 PNLR 74 (see below) or a comparable exception.


The court (Fancott J) held that the fact but not the content of the WP communications was admissible in the proceedings.

The court noted that this case was unusual in that related WP communications, between the claimants and the representative beneficiaries, would be in evidence at trial (because the claimants had waived privilege in those communications by suing the Lawyers in relation to the conduct of those negotiations, and the representative beneficiaries had confirmed their agreement to the communications being disclosed). However, the Lawyers were seeking to put in evidence the content of separate WP communications made in an attempt to settle the current claims against Aon.

Implied waiver

The court rejected the argument that Aon had impliedly waived WP privilege over the communications.

The court observed that, because such a waiver would have the effect of the whole of the WP communications becoming admissible to prove any relevant fact, "an implied waiver of the privilege attaching to without prejudice negotiations is not lightly inferred".

The case law establishes that when a party to WP negotiations deploys the content of the negotiations on the merits of the claim, even for a limited purpose, that party thereby waives its right to insist on the protection of the rule if the counterparty accepts that the negotiations can be referred to. Otherwise, the judge said, the court must ask itself whether, given the purpose of the rule, any reference to the negotiations is such that it would be unjust for that party to insist on the protection of the rule.

Here, Aon had not referred to or "deployed" any of the content of the WP communications. Whilst Aon had put in issue the reasonableness of the Settlement, the Lawyers' alleged negligence, the cause of the claimants' loss and the extent to which the Lawyers (as distinct from Aon) should be responsible for the claimants' loss, those issues were independent of the fact or content of the WP negotiations between the claimants and Aon.

Exception to the WP rule

The court also concluded that there was no exception to the WP rule which justified admission of the content of the WP communications.

The judge agreed with the Lawyers that the claimants had waived their right to WP protection by bringing the negligence claim against the Lawyers. Where negotiations were relied on to prove some collateral matter (such as reasonable mitigation of loss) and the other party to the WP communications was unaffected by the claim (like the representative beneficiaries in this case) the Muller exception would, the judge said, be readily applicable.

However, Aon was not in the same position as the representative beneficiaries, whose claims had been settled. The claim against Aon was pending, which meant that Aon had a legitimate continuing interest in the broad protection conferred by the WP rule (namely the confidentiality of its negotiations to try and settle the claim). Aon risked losing that protection if the content of the WP communications was put in evidence, even if to prove a collateral matter.

The court then considered whether the fact that Aon had raised the allegations of negligence against the Lawyers affected the position. It noted the general principle that bringing a claim or making an allegation does not disentitle a party from relying on WP privilege, as that would undermine the operation of the rule. However, the judge said, that general principle "may well be qualified" where an issue is raised which is only justiciable upon proof of WP negotiations. Cases such as Muller were examples of that kind. As the judge put it:

"A claimant (or defendant) cannot at one and the same time raise an issue to be tried and rely on without prejudice privilege to prevent the court from seeing the evidence that is needed to decide it."

The court noted, however, that the Muller exception had not previously been held to apply in the case of WP negotiations in the same claim that was before the court. For the exception to arise, the judge said, it must be necessary that the material be admitted to resolve an issue raised by a party to the WP negotiations, in circumstances where the legitimate protection given to the parties to the negotiations was not adversely affected.

The court then reviewed whether it was necessary to admit the WP communications in respect of the issues raised by Aon. Ultimately, the court concluded that it was not necessary, on any of the issues, for it to examine the WP communications in order to have a fair trial. The judge accepted that in the absence of an exception to the WP rule, a trial judge would have an incomplete picture of events. He observed, however, that this was simply the consequence of an exclusionary rule. The WP rule is broad in its effect and with narrow exceptions. Although the list of those exceptions is not closed, any exception must be "of the same character or a principled and incremental extension of an existing exception".

The court also rejected the Lawyers' argument that it could separate out the WP materials and redact those materials to the extent necessary. The court regarded such redaction as encountering a number of difficulties both in practice and principle (particularly since there was before the court "no definitive map of the surgery to be performed").

The court did, however, agree with the Lawyers that the fact of the WP communications could be referred to in evidence (even though the content of those communications could not) where that fact was relevant to an issue in the case. The court accepted that the fact of the WP negotiations could be relevant to the "new intervening act" issue and to the apportionment of responsibility between Aon and the Lawyers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions