Without Prejudice

NipNip

Just how powerful is that?

whippet

NipNip wrote: »

Just how powerful is that?

very

NipNip

So if I stick it ahead of all correspondence I have with a solicitor, it is literally between the opposing solicitor and me?

johnnyskeleton

NipNip wrote: »

So if I stick it ahead of all correspondence I have with a solicitor, it is literally between the opposing solicitor and me?

Surely some of the solicitors in your local town must have opened up again by now?

NipNip

Oh no, they have. All of a sudden they are using 'without prejudice' in replying to me. The opposing solicitor that is!

NipNip

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely some of the solicitors in your local town must have opened up again by now?

I can't afford one.

NipNip

Why did no-one recommend me using 'Without Prejudice' myself in legal correspondence. Collusion I tells yis!

johnnyskeleton

NipNip wrote: »

I can't afford one.

Ok, there are a number of agencies that can help you such as flac, the legal aid board etc and some issue specific places eg mabs for debt, treshold for tenancy problems.

Without prejudice correspondence is meant for making proposals to settle a case eg im not openly admitting im wrong but will you take €X to end the case etc. Using without prejudice for normal correspondence with a solicitor is kinda self self defeating.

johnnyskeleton

NipNip wrote: »

Why did no-one recommend me using 'Without Prejudice' myself in legal correspondence. Collusion I tells yis!

Mostly i should think because you didnt ask a solicitor

NipNip

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, there are a number of agencies that can help you such as flac, the legal aid board etc and some issue specific places eg mabs for debt, treshold for tenancy problems.

Without prejudice correspondence is meant for making proposals to settle a case eg im not openly admitting im wrong but will you take €X to end the case etc. Using without prejudice for normal correspondence with a solicitor is kinda self self defeating.

So, using 'Without Prejudice' followed by '
The Law may be a bit of a donkey but I can assure you it can kick. ' does not fall within the without prejudice parameters right?

Grolschevik

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mostly i should think because you didnt ask a solicitor

And also because she replied to the opposing party before asking an anyway clear question here...

johnnyskeleton

NipNip wrote: »

So, using 'Without Prejudice' followed by '
The Law may be a bit of a donkey but I can assure you it can kick. ' does not fall within the without prejudice parameters right?

Its not intended to allow you to make unintelligible random comments.

NipNip

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its not intended to allow you to make unintelligible random comments.

That comment was made by the opposing solicitor my dear. Without Prejudice.

Tails142

By saying without prejudice at the start of the letter you are basically saying that any offers for settlement that you might make at this stage can't be used against you at a later date.

I.e. if it goes the court the opposing solicitor can't stand up and say, well he offered me €10,000 to settle theclaim before so a) he's admitting he's wrong and b) we want at least 10 grand awarded to us.

So it is a generally just used by default at the top of any letter where some sort of offer is being made.

NipNip

Given that no offer was being made, presumably, I can also use it when wishing to comment where I can't be quoted in court? That's what they did?

BloodThirsty

NipNip wrote: »

Given that no offer was being made, presumably, I can also use it when wishing to comment where I can't be quoted in court? That's what they did?

i would not rely on it completely.

Pro Hoc Vice

Tails142 wrote: »

By saying without prejudice at the start of the letter you are basically saying that any offers for settlement that you might make at this stage can't be used against you at a later date.

I.e. if it goes the court the opposing solicitor can't stand up and say, well he offered me €10,000 to settle theclaim before so a) he's admitting he's wrong and b) we want at least 10 grand awarded to us.

So it is a generally just used by default at the top of any letter where some sort of offer is being made.

Without prejudice can be used in all communication, what it means is that the letter can not be exhibited by the other party in Court proceedings, of course while it usually means it can not be used the person, who wants to exhibit it can in certain circumstances (very rarely) request that the Court looks behind the without prejudice. Of course the person who wrote the letter can waive prejudice.

NipNip

Without Prejudice is going on all future correspondence of mine!

BloodThirsty

i know someone who wrote WP on a letter to a solicitor and the solicitor said it was on the record i.e WP did not apply. Can the solicitor written to determine it is not WP?

NipNip

Without Prejudice/Subject to Contract/Contract Denied and any combination of the above has been used by people for whom I've worked.
I take it, 'Without Prejudice' and telling me I'm going to get kicked by the donkey of the law, is really 'taking the law into ones own hands'?
Am I right or am I right?
I know I'm right.

Pro Hoc Vice

NipNip wrote: »

Without Prejudice/Subject to Contract/Contract Denied and any combination of the above has been used by people for whom I've worked.
I take it, 'Without Prejudice' and telling me I'm going to get kicked by the donkey of the law, is really 'taking the law into ones own hands'?
Am I right or am I right?
I know I'm right.

If I understood what you are trying to say maybe I could answer your question.

With or with out prejudice, my rule is never write a letter I would be unhappy to have read out to a judge. Always assume it is going to be read in open Court, if you are happy to come across as an uneducated nut case then write away like one, if you want to come across as an educated person who deserves the hearing of the Court then write in that vein. Also a good idea is to write to people in the manner you would like would like to read, if the letter was addressed to you. Never write a letter in anger, never reply by e-mail unless it is to attach a letter in pdf format, never write a letter you would not read to your granny, and personal insults only lower the writer not the reader.

BloodThirsty

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

If I understood what you are trying to say maybe I could answer your question.

With or with out prejudice, my rule is never write a letter I would be unhappy to have read out to a judge. Always assume it is going to be read in open Court, if you are happy to come across as an uneducated nut case then write away like one, if you want to come across as an educated person who deserves the hearing of the Court then write in that vain. Also a good idea is to write to people in the manner you would like would like to read, if the letter was addressed to you. Never write a letter in anger, never reply by e-mail unless it is to attach a letter in pdf format, never write a letter you would not read to your granny, and personal insults only lower the writer not the reader.

vein
Never write a letter in anger" Like poker - no emotions

Pro Hoc Vice

BloodThirsty wrote: »

vein
Never write a letter in anger" Like poker - no emotions

Thanks for spell-check.

NipNip

I didn't write the letter. The opposing solicitor did.

BloodThirsty

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Thanks for spell-check.

sorry couldn't resist

Meauldsegosha

NipNip wrote: »

Without Prejudice/Subject to Contract/Contract Denied and any combination of the above has been used by people for whom I've worked.
I take it, 'Without Prejudice' and telling me I'm going to get kicked by the donkey of the law, is really 'taking the law into ones own hands'?
Am I right or am I right?
I know I'm right.

Lets be honest here, it doesn't really matter what people here tell you or what a solicitor tells you and probably what the judge will tell you. You've convinced yourself that you and only you are right about this issue and about joint & several. :rolleyes: