Without prejudice

[cornwallia]

Can you use 'without prejudice' in SENDIST appeals to cover negotiations and correspondence?

Yes, I think so, but god knows I know NOTHING about this area so I'm just giving you encouragement to find out.

I get peed off that they keep copying all my letters to SENDIST! Worth a try.

Okay, but SENDIST are probably peed off about it too.

Be aware that if you start to do it, they might, and you might want SENDIST to know what they are up to too!?

Good point!

Unless it's used as a term between professionals to cover 'side negotiations' that they can't rely on directly in court, the courts etc won't take any notice of 'without prejudice' on correspondence. They'll use common sense to determine who was entitled to see what and agree what instead. (or what passes for common sense in court settings )

But you know, you could write to them and ask them why they feel they have to forward all your letters on to SENDIST, and whether they would just perfer that you cc'd in SENDIST in the first place?

It is not a term limited to lawyers Amber - and I speak as one. Anyone can use without prejudice in litigation and there are often litigants in persons in litigation cases.

The aim of the without prejudice rule is to protect communciations which aim to negotiate a settlement. There is in fact an inference that communciations which have that aim are in fact considered without prejudice even if that is not written on the letter. The purpose is to enable both sides to speak more freely as in mediation.

My concern was that I wasn't sure whether SENDIST cases are considered 'litigation' as they are, ridiculously, supposed to be non-adversarial .

I was always taught never to write anything in proceedings you wouldn't want a judge to see, so without prejudice rule or not, the correspondence should be professional and aim to progress matters.

I think it does give the local authority an opportunity to suggest settlement if they are minded to do so.

I'm a professional myself, Cornwallia. The advice was direct from one of the people involved in the tribunals process as to how they view things.

How odd. I would have thought it either applied or it didn't. Usually it depends on whether the information is intended to negotiate a settlement not who is using it. So it is correct to say that simply writing without prejudice doesn't mean it is a without prejudice letter. Perhaps that is what your colleague was trying to say.

Aye, that was the gist of it. If parents are using the term, the assumption in the unofficial guidance is that they are not well trained enough to know when to use it or what its ramifications are. They're happier if parents can write what they intend, e.g. "I would like this letter to be just for us to talk about the possibilities rather than it being used in court - is that ok" etc.