# General Business Category > General Business Forum >  Without Prejudice, what it means

## Citizen X

Hi guys,

In the litany of various correspondence you received over the years you must have come across  without  prejudice, written at the bottom of the letter or email. This is especially true of legal correspondence.

1. Statement made  without prejudice is a privilege invoked;
2. The rationale of using this privilege is based on public policy which promotes the private settlement of disputes by the parties themselves without adding to an already burdened court roll;
3. Parties would be hesitant to be frank and completely forthcoming in correspondence if what they said in the email or letter can be used against them in court in the event of negotiations failing;
4. In order for a statement, letter, email etc which is made without prejudiceto be protected from disclosure is that it has to be made in good faith(bona fides)
So, when writing business letters or responding to an attorney or legal correspondence always include   without prejudice at the end of your letter;
5. By doing this you can be rest assured that your document will be inadmissible as evidence in court based solely on your use of without prejudice

e.g
Regards,
Viny
Without Prejudice :Smile:  :Smile:

----------

BusFact (22-Dec-11), Dave A (21-Dec-11), desA (21-Dec-11), Petrichor (19-Jan-12)

----------


## nkawit

wow, good info, thanks Viny

----------


## daveob

So should it be included in any reply correspondence relating to a prescribed debt ?  

Would this in effect prevent the creditor from claiming that you have acknowledged the debt, causing the prescription period to start again ?

Just a though after seeing some of the debt related posts recently.

----------


## Citizen X

Hi dave,

No, this statement will not strengthen a prescription claim(although I do use it in all my correspondence as well as prescription claims)." What it will do is to render anything you state in good faith in a letter unusable in litigation against you.
A proper prescription claim that gets results requires knowledge of the legal hurdles that you need to overcome to prove a prescription claim. The legal document I prepare is individualised and includes not only references to the relevant sections of the ACt but also caselaw that applies to your specific situation.

----------


## Phil Cooper

Guys

I had a number of "Without Prejudice" letter from my ex-wife on a certain issue. She was trying to be clever.

Matter went to court - and ALL the correspondence was ruled as ADMISSIBLE despite the disclaimer.

It transpites this only applies if you are MAKING AN OFFER on something - NOT in a general letter.

So - be careful!

----------

BusFact (19-Jan-12), Dave A (21-Dec-11)

----------


## HoneyB

> Guys
> 
> I had a number of "Without Prejudice" letter from my ex-wife on a certain issue. She was trying to be clever.
> 
> Matter went to court - and ALL the correspondence was ruled as ADMISSIBLE despite the disclaimer.
> 
> It transpites this only applies if you are MAKING AN OFFER on something - NOT in a general letter.
> 
> So - be careful!


I also have the same.  My ex-husband and his wife use this in almost all communication and i have confirmed that when this goes to trial that it would not stand up in court and will actually count against them.  Some people use it in just general letters without realising what it really means.  It only really applies when you are trully trying to reach a settlement or make an offer to resolve the dispute.  If you send a letter where there is no settlement mentioned then it does not apply.

If you use it all the time in all communication to a person i.e. my ex-husband to myself, it can actually count against him. The question is why would you try an use this to protect yourself if you are doing nothing wrong?

----------


## BusFact

I would imagine that you would use it if you offered to compromise on a certain issue, say accept a reduced payout, on the condition that something else happens. An offer has therefore been made.

If the condition is not met you would no longer accept the reduced payout. If this is done without predjudice, then it can't later be argued that you are prepared to accept a lower payout. So not doing anything wrong, but still being protected.

Thats my understanding anyway.

----------


## Petrichor

Very good info, thanks for sharing

----------

