Without Prejudice Payments

[angry cat]

A question concerning Without Prejudice payments.

 

If an account is shortly due to become statute barred but there were four Without Prejudice payments paid to the account, then how would those payments affect the situation of the account becoming time barred?

 

The payments in question were made some time ago and only paid, because of fear re: the CRA's ruining a once immaculate credit file.

 

The payments were made by cheque, therefore the cheques can be recalled as proof, they clearly show;

Without Prejudice.

 

Hopefully, a legal expert can advise.

 

AC

[palomino]

I'm not sure how payments could be perceived as being without prejudice. It's a part of the law that I'm totally unfamiliar with.

 

In normal circumstances any payments to the account would be seen as restarting the clock, hence your six year period before the debt becomes statute-barred only started when you made the last of the four payments.

[angry cat]

I'm not sure how payments could be perceived as being without prejudice. It's a part of the law that I'm totally unfamiliar with.

 

In normal circumstances any payments to the account would be seen as restarting the clock, hence your six year period before the debt becomes statute-barred only started when you made the last of the four payments.

 

That is not what a Barrister (now a QC) led me to believe.

 

I simply wanted a further view re: the matter.

 

Perhaps, PT would kindly advise:)

 

AC

[palomino]

I'm afraid I'm not getting into a debate with a QC!

[angry cat]

I don't want to debate or, argue the point.

I was just hoping that one of the legal experts on here could give their view...please.

 

AC

[Viscount Stair]

I'm not an expert on limitation or without prejudice privilege but I did a quick Google search and there seems to have been a 2006 case that narrowed the scope of WP privilege in this area (Rashid v B&B).

 

Be very careful.

[angry cat]

Thanks VS, I will look that up.

However, the payments were made prior to 2006.

 

Perhaps, I should ask the question in the legalities forum?

 

AC

[Viscount Stair]

Which is probably why you were told at the time you were OK but might not be now. Rashid won in the Court of Appeal but lost in the House of Lords.

 

Here is an article that might explain things a bit:

 

Acknowledgment of debt: the Limitation Act 1980 and the without prejudice rule

 

That's one article that gives a very brief summary from one point of view and I haven't read the Rashid judgment to form a view of my own, so I'd advise caution but I do hope it points you in the right direction.

 

I haven't read the Rashid judgment, so I

[angry cat]

That case is in relation to a shortfall mortage, in which the time allowed is 12 years.

 

The limitation rule on, for example, credit cards is 6 years.

 

There has been no acknowlegement via letters, just Giro/TransCash slips with the words 'Without Prejudice' Payment, the same written on the cheques;

copies of the payments slips have been kept as proof;

The cheques can be recalled as proof.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Addendum;

 

I was advised at the time by Counsel that, the Statute of Limitation was on need of reforming/amending.

 

Lateral thinking;

I wonder though even if that case law applies, would it be retrospective?

 

AC

[Viscount Stair]

I am afraid that, having marched you up to the top of that hill, I am going to have to leave you there for someone more knowledgable than I am to help you further - it's not an area in which I feel confident to be any more specific than I have been already (which wasn't very).

 

Do be very careful though.

 

(Unfortunately, there isn't much call for lawyers in the areas I am knowledgable in but that is another story altogether.)

[angry cat]

Thanks VS for all your input, very much appreciated!

 

I always try to be careful, look before you leap is my motto.

 

Hopefully, someone will come along with a specialist view.

 

AC

[I've got no money]

I'm not an expert on limitation (I think that you'll struggle to find one on here) but I think that you may find that you have a problem. I think that you need to go back to basic principles and look at what the purpose of "Without Prejudice" actually is and what it means.

 

As far as I understand it "Without Prejudice" is designed to cover negotiations and would for example include an offer to settle. As I understand it the words have no magic properties and would not create privilege unless there were negotiations in existence at the time.

 

The moment that the negotiations are concluded the privilege would cease to exist.

 

I think that we need a bit more information. In terms of negotiations - were there any underway at the time of the payments. If so what were the precise terms of the correspondenced between the parties.

 

The advice you received from counsel, was it in writing, if so can you post it to allow us to see what counsel based his opinion on.