Without prejudice under English law, English law was introduced to facilitate out-of-court settlement agreements and, therefore, to save taxpayers` money by reducing the number of cases before the courts. The prejudice-free regime prevents statements that are brought to justice as part of a genuine attempt to resolve an existing dispute. But if long after the negotiations failed and the disputes began, it prevented the parties from making the negotiations unscathed, because at the time, it could not be said that there was an “existing dispute”? To what extent should the failed negotiations be on the eve of the start of the trial? In this guide, we want to share with you some tips that we have compiled over the years by writing unprejudiced letters to employers. So if you write your own letter to your employer, you have a good chance of getting what you want: a settlement contract with a good sum and not what you don`t want: two years of costly litigation before the labour tribunal. The purpose of non-prejudice regulation is to encourage parties to the dispute to try to reach an agreement by allowing them and their legal advisers to speak freely and make concessions, knowing that their words can no longer be used against them in court if negotiations do not reach an agreement. However, protection is not absolute and there are exceptions. as shown below. It is the anatomy of any good letter, without prejudice, if it is to have a chance to lead to a successful negotiation. Are there exceptions to the “no prejudice” rule? The rule of prejudice is a common protection. This means that all parties to the relevant context can only renounce it together, without the disclosure being free of prejudice. I do not see why the usual principles of the interpretation of a transaction agreement would be different, regardless of the fact that the negotiations that conducted it were without prejudice. The language should be interpreted in the same way and the question posed by Mr. Hoffmann should be the same, namely what a reasonable person, with all the substantive knowledge available to the parties, would have understood [the parties] to use the language in the treaty, to mean.
This basic knowledge may well include objective facts communicated by one party to the other during the negotiations. To my knowledge, the interpretation process should in principle be the same, whether the negotiations proceeded without prejudice or not.