EAT on 16th October 2006 and Court of Appeal on 22nd May 2007 (reported at [2007] IRLR 592)
NOTES

  • Brunel University & Professor Schwarz v Professor Vaseghi & Ms G. Webster, EAT on 16th October 2006.
  • the full text of this judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website

  • Mr Andrew Stafford instructed by Eversheds LLP, Solicitors, Senator House, 85 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4JL for Brunel University and Professor Schwartz
  • Mr Rohan Pirani instructed by Messrs Webster Dixon LLP, Solicitors, Fourth Floor, Thavies Inn House, 3-4 Holborn Circus, London EC1N 2HA for Professor Vaseghi
  • Mr Rohan Pirani instructed by Messrs Thompsons, Solicitors, Congress House , Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LW for Ms Webster.
    Authority for the propositions that:-

    • the public interest need to protect "without prejudice" privileged discussions held to promote settlement of claims can be overridden by the need, in discrimination cases, to establish the truth of what had occurred.
    • the actions or conduct of the parties can amount to an implied waiver of the protection afforded by the "without prejudice" privilege if that conduct was inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality which the privilege was intended to protect

    and a case in which:-

      the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and later the Court of Appeal, gave extensive and detailed consideration to the applicability and effect of the "without prejudice" rule, the fundamental purpose of which is to enable parties to a dispute to attempt to negotiate a settlement of their dispute without running the risk of what might be said during the negotiations being used against them in subsequent court proceedings if the dispute could not be settled amicably.

    editor's note:
    On 22nd May 2007 this case came before the Court of Appeal (see Brunel University & Schwartz v Ms G. Webster and Professor Vaseghi, [2007] EWCA Civ 482 , reported at [2007] IRLR 592). The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT decision noted below to the effect that "without prejudice" discussions for settlement of Professor Vaseghi's claim (as well as written reports of Brunel University's Grievance Panel including such evidence) were admissible in proceedings in which Professor Vaseghi alleged he had suffered victimisation as a result of a race discrimination claim he had previously brought against the University (as to which see notes at Vaseghi v Brunel University EAT 2004 ). The Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to come to any decision on whether the without prejudice rule works differently in discrimination and victimisation cases than in other cases.

    For relevant general notes see Procedure of Employment Tribunals/without prejudice rule and/or Procedure of Employment Tribunals/forms and documents/documents for a hearing


    FINISH>
    prepared October 2006