Without predudice. What does it mean

The first appointment was adjourned so we had another one. My ex’s solicitor wanted to go straight to FDR.

The day before the court they sent letters to me, designed for me not to get in time.

They said in the letter” we shall prepare an FDR bundle of without prejudice correspondence for use by the court” I thought the without prejudice wasn’t to go to the judge. Their without prejudice letter made me so emotional, so my words were harsh. And they also gave the judge a note from counsel that was pure lies.

My ex has 3 solicitors and a Barrister, I am self representing
Help

'Without prejudice' correspondence is designed to allow parties to negotiate a settlement without fear that the details of the negotiation, should they fail, be made aware to a judge at a final hearing.

The FDR (financial dispute resolution) is a special type of hearing where a judge will help parties negotiate, and preferably give an indication as to what a fair settlement would be. Everything discussed at an FDR is considered without prejudice and cannot be told to the judge at final hearing.

The FDR judge cannot preside over the final hearing so you will get a new judge then.

To avoid this thread being taken out of contest....

There is a difference between 'without prejudice', 'without prejudice save as to costs' and a Part 36 offer which is a type of 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer.

If you don't know what they mean you should not use one and if receive one and don't understand the ramifications, you should seek legal advice.

A word to the wise - if you head up a letter 'without prejudice', this does not necessarily imbue the contents with the protection that the title affords.

For example, if you were to say "without prejudice, I have received the divorce petition, and I am prepared not to defend this if you withdraw your claim for costs" - the statement "I have received the divorce petition" is not without prejudice and the admission can be used in lieu of a formal acknowledgement of service.

Confusing isn't it? The vagaries of law are what keep me on my toes - it sure isn't the money or paperwork!

Charles

Confusing is an understatement lol.
We are divorced and I went back for a variation on SM. The letter that said “without prejudice “ was an offer and for me to sign Clean Break. I replied with “without prejudice “ on the letter saying no to the offer.

They wanted it to be an FDR but judge said it was be the adjourned first appointment. I thought the judge couldn’t have the “without prejudice “ letters.

Am I right in saying that the judge in the FDR can’t be the same judge as he saw those 2 letters?

The FDR isn’t till next March but I just want it over.

The FDR judge gets to see the documentation available at the first hearing so it doesn't matter if the judge at the FDA is the same as the judge at the FDR.

The FDR judge is privy to information and conversation which exempts them from any further dealings with the case. By being at the hearing they put themselves in a position of conflict which prevents them being involved any further.

Having said that there has been at least one recorded instance on this forum when a party had the same judge at the final hearing who was at the FDR. When questioned on this the judge said "I don't remember any of that hearing" and went on to conduct the hearing. This was a bad decision for the judge but I could understand the rationale.

Charles

Sorry to jump on this thread but topic's the same - ex sends abusive emails marked without prejudice, presumably hoping that I can't bring them up in court. Surely that's nonsense?

It depends what is in the emails. Adding the without prejudice label doesn't necessarily imbue the communication with the protection of the without prejudice label.

If the email said "without prejudice, I have an undisclosed account and if you don't accept my offer I'm going to take the money and go to Las Vegas" - this could be disclosed to the court as it makes a statement of fact. A statement of fact cannot be 'without prejudice',

That's a simple example but not one which you should use as a template. If you have more details on the content of the emails more guidance may be provided.

Charles