Free Advice Hotline: 1800 810 807

Search
PHCostsAssist Login
LinkedinTwitter
Pattison HardmanPattison Hardman
Pattison Hardman
Legal Costs Consultants | Legal Costing Services
  • About
  • Our Services
    • Bill Of Costs
      • Party/Party Costs
      • Indemnity Costs
      • Solicitor Client Costs
      • Objections and Concessions
      • Taxation
    • Expert Evidence
      • Security of Costs
      • Gross Lump Sum Costs Orders
      • Independent Assessments
    • Cost Consultancy
      • Review of internal cost structures
      • Advice on large-scale litigation
      • Insolvency litigation
      • Insurance litigation
      • Class Actions
      • Government
    • Costs Recovery
  • Our Team
    • Suzanne Ward
    • Charles Ackroyd
    • Paul Taylor
    • Katie Cerexhe
    • Suzanne Krieke
    • Kate Chan
    • David Swain
    • Joanne Whelan
    • Anna Cox
    • Kelly El Hitti
  • Cases & Articles
  • CLE
  • Contact Us
Menu back  

“Without Prejudice” or “Without Prejudice Save As to Costs”

March 3, 2017Uncategorized
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on LinkedIn Share
Send email Mail
Print Print

“Without Prejudice” or “Without Prejudice Save As to Costs”

What’s the difference?

The question was recently considered by the Federal Court of Australia in Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 120 handing down it’s judgment on 20 February 2017.

This long running and no doubt expensive matter concerned a dispute relating to a breach of employment contract, with Ms. Romero ultimately being awarded nominal damages of $100 (although significant damages were recovered in relation to her Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act claim).

Back in 2004, Farstad attempted to settle the proceedings by making an offer to Romero in a document entitled “Release and Discharge Deed”. The email to which that document was attached contained in the subject line that the email was sent “without prejudice” rather than “without prejudice save as to costs”

Ms Romero relied upon that distinction in submitting that the deed should not have been disclosed to the Court and that the offer should therefore be disregarded in considering the order for costs and Farstad’s call for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The submission was rejected.  At common law, there is a valid distinction between the two kinds of offer.  As Megarry VC said in Computer Machinery Co Ltd v Drescher [1983] 1 WLR 1379 at 1383:

“Whether an offer is made ‘without prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice save as to costs,’ the courts ought to enforce the terms on which the offer is made so as to encourage compromises and shorten litigation. The latter form of offer has the added advantage of preventing the offer from being inadmissible on costs, thereby assisting the court towards justice in making the order as to costs.”

The common law has, however, been displaced by s 131 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) which provides (relevantly) as follows:

s131    Exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations

                (1)       Evidence is not to be adduced of:

(a) a communication that is made between persons in dispute, or between one or more persons in dispute and a third party, in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute; or

(b)  a document (whether delivered or not) that has been prepared in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute.

(2)       Subsection (1) does not apply if:

…

(h) the communication or document is relevant to determining liability for costs; or”

So, did Farshad receive the indemnity costs it sought? Answer, No, but for reasons we are unconcerned with here.

The takeout is that all communications, however marked, relevant to the determination of liability for costs can be adduced.

Share on TwitterTweet
Share on LinkedIn Share
Send email Mail
Print Print
Related posts
The perils of issuing a statutory demand for fees
May 31, 2019
12 MONTH LIMITATION ON ASSESSMENT OF SOLICITOR CLIENT COSTS
April 16, 2018
When is a tax invoice an “itemised bill”
May 19, 2017
Cautionary tale for solicitors who hold money on trust in Family Law proceedings
March 17, 2017
Search Cases & Articles
Categories
  • Costs Cases(53)
  • Expert Costing Evidence(3)
  • Legal Costs Articles(20)
  • News, Thoughts and Jargon(14)
  • Uncategorized(5)
Recent Cases, Articles & Publications
  • Gross lump sum costs order (Federal Court of Australia)
    August 11, 2006
  • New disclosure requirements and the indemnity principle
    December 30, 2006
  • Rejection hurts
    April 30, 2007
  • Legal Costs: an end to the wrangling
    May 30, 2007
  • Costs Restrictions in the Local Court
    October 30, 2007
Our Latest Posts
  • A fool for a client – Chorley expunged!
    September 4, 2019
  • The perils of issuing a statutory demand for fees
    May 31, 2019
  • “From an instructing solicitor’s point of view, if such cancellation fees are sought from barristers, it would be prudent for the solicitor to require the client to enter into a separate agreement direct with the barrister or alternatively require the barrister to indemnify the solicitor against any repayment of fees…should the cancellation fee be challenged.”
    July 6, 2018
  • About Pattison Hardman
  • Our Services
  • Our Team
  • Cases & Articles
  • Contact
  • Log In
Contact Us
Free Advice Hotline: 1800 810 807

T: 02 9692 9111
F: 02 9692 9633
E: info@pattisonhardman.com.au

Level 4 235 Macquarie Street Sydney NSW 2000

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinWebsite
© Copyright 2015 Pattison Hardman Pty Ltd | All Rights Reserved | Website By Stella Design

The recognised leader in quality legal costing since 1988