“Without prejudice letter” can be withheld without breaching fair trial rights

16 December 2010 by

Ofulue v United Kingdom, Application no. 52512/09read judgment

The Strasbourg Court has confirmed that the inadmissibility of a “without prejudice” letter neither interferes with an applicant’s fair trial rights under Article 6 nor does it prejudice their rights to enjoyment of property under Article 1 Protocol 1 where the production of such a letter might have proved their title in  proceedings challenging adverse possession.

The applicant was the registered owner of a property in London which became subject to adverse possession. In the dispute over whether or not her title had been extinguished she sought permission to produce a “without prejudice” letter from the tenants which had been written some years before making an offer on the house.  At first instance it was held that the tenants had been in adverse possession for over twelve years and that the applicants’ title had been extinguished before October 2000. The applicant’s claim under Article 1 Protocol 1 failed in the Court of Appeal, who found that it was bound to follow the Strasbourg ruling in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom no. 44302/02, § 66, ECHR 2007. In that case the Grand Chamber concluded that the legislative provisions on adverse possession and limitation of claims were Convention compliant. Although UK courts were not necessarily bound by Strasbourg decisions, there were no “special circumstances” justifying departing from that decision (per R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (2004) UKHL 26, (2004) 2 AC 323).  As for the without prejudice offer, the Court of Appeal found that the admission of title in the defence did not constitute an acknowledgment for the purposes of the operative provision, Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980; that in any event the defence had been served more than 12 years before the second proceedings and any acknowledgment did not continue beyond the date of the defence; and that the without prejudice offer could not be relied on. The applicant’s appeal to the House of Lords was also unsuccessful. The HL held that the normal rule was that statements made in negotiations between parties to litigation with a view to settling were inadmissible.  The without prejudice rule was “founded upon the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than litigate them to a finish” (Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, 1299). The fact that in the instant case the rule was being invoked in relation to negotiations in earlier proceedings involved no new extension of it. Such a “without prejudice” statement would only be admissible where it was wholly unconnected with the issues in the proceedings.The majority were particularly concerned that creating such an exception could potentially cause huge practical difficulties while also whittling down the protection afforded to parties to litigation.

Before the European Court of Rights, the applicant complained that the application of the “without prejudice” rule violated her rights under Article 6, Article 10 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Held:

All complaints dismissed. While Article 6 guarantees a right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law. As for the complaint under A1P1, the Grand Chamber had held in Pye v United Kingdom J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], , that the loss of title following the application of the laws on adverse possession amounted to a “control of use of land” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and not a “deprivation of possessions”. It was also accepted in that case that the limitation period for actions for recovery of land – and the extinguishment of title at the end of the limitation period – pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest.
In the Court’s view it had been open to the applicant on the expiry of the limitation period to argue that the Bs had not been in adverse possession. The only restriction on this right was the domestic court’s refusal to admit in evidence the letter of 14 January 1992.

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: