The recent case of Woodward v Santander UK plc
clarifies the 'without prejudice' rule and confirms the
narrow boundaries of exceptions. The established exceptions are
that it must not be "a cloak for perjury, blackmail or
other 'unambiguous impropriety'". This case
confirms that the courts are reluctant to extend the exceptions to
the 'without prejudice' rule and that clear evidence of
these abuses must be found before without prejudice material can be
relied on in court.
Mrs Woodward sought to adduce evidence from 'without
prejudice' negotiations that had occurred between her and her
former employer, Santander. Mrs Woodward had alleged victimisation
and direct sex discrimination against Santander. She wished to use
evidence of her request for a reference and Santander's refusal
to give one from settlement discussions to show that Santander had
"reprisal in mind" from the outset and that the
subsequent conduct was discriminatory. Santander applied to prevent
this
