Morris v Williams
Citation: [2025] EWHC 218 (KB)
Background Facts
-
The case concerned a road traffic accident on 20 July 2018 in which Mr Morris, riding a motorcycle, was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr Williams.
-
Liability for the accident was not disputed; it was accepted that the accident was due to the Defendant’s negligence and that the Claimant sustained some injury.
-
The Defendant alleged "fundamental dishonesty" on the part of the Claimant, arguing that Mr Morris exaggerated the extent and impact of his injuries.
-
The Defendant relied on surveillance evidence showing the Claimant engaging in activities inconsistent with his claimed limitations.
-
The Defendant applied to admit a letter, marked “Without Prejudice – Save as to costs,” from the Claimant’s former solicitors.
-
In that letter, the Claimant offered to settle and included an offer to admit fundamental dishonesty, but only under a non-disclosure agreement.
​Judgment
-
Key issue:
Whether the "without prejudice" letter could be admitted as evidence under the "unambiguous impropriety" exception to the general rule that such communications are privileged.
​
-
Decision:
-
The court ruled that the letter should be admitted as evidence.
-
It found that the letter included a clear admission by the Claimant that he had been fundamentally dishonest in part of his case.
-
The admission was not just a negotiation tactic or a minor concession but an explicit acknowledgment of dishonesty.
-
​
-
Reasoning:
-
The exception for "unambiguous impropriety" applies when excluding evidence would allow perjury or a false case to continue.
-
In this case, excluding the letter would allow the Claimant to maintain a false position in court proceedings.
-
The court concluded that public interest in uncovering dishonesty outweighed the policy of protecting settlement discussions.
-
​
-
Outcome:
The Defendant’s application succeeded; the letter was admitted into evidence.
General Principles Developed
-
Strict "without prejudice" rule reaffirmed but exceptions confirmed:
Communications genuinely aimed at settlement are generally privileged and inadmissible, to encourage open settlement discussions.
​
-
"Unambiguous impropriety" exception clarified:
-
Admissibility is allowed where excluding evidence would cloak perjury, blackmail, or dishonesty.
-
This exception should only be applied in the clearest cases where the conduct goes well beyond normal negotiating positions.
-
​
-
Fundamental dishonesty admissions as an exception:
If a party admits fundamental dishonesty during settlement negotiations, such an admission can be admitted if it would otherwise enable the continuation of a dishonest claim.
​
-
No dissection of settlement letters without strong grounds:
Courts will avoid dissecting settlement offers into admissible and inadmissible parts except where clear impropriety is shown.
​
-
Caution at interim stages:
The threshold for admitting such evidence at interim stages is deliberately high, ensuring fairness and protecting genuine negotiations unless there is clear abuse.