Motorola v Hytera (2021) CA Civ 11 concerned when without prejudice privilege is displaced by the “unambiguous impropriety” exception. Males LJ reviewed the authorities at paras 24-56 inclusive, and states at para 57: “From this review of the cases I would conclude that the courts have consistently emphasised the importance of allowing parties to speak freely in the course of settlement negotiations, have jealously guarded any incursion into or erosion of the without prejudice rule, and have carefully scrutinised evidence which is asserted to justify an exception to the rule.” Although the “unambiguous impropriety” exception has been recognised, the cases in which it has been applied have been “truly exceptional”.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 11th, 2021 at 5:26 pm and is filed under Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.