Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employee relationsEmployment lawEmployee communicationsEmployment tribunalsRestrictive covenants

How to have without prejudice off-the-record discussions safely: peril and prejudice

by Personnel Today 15 Sep 2008
by Personnel Today 15 Sep 2008

Michael Farrelly looks at the perils of using off-the-record discussions between employer and employee in disputes.

Conciliatory correspondence can often create problems rather than solve them. As Jane Austen’s Mr Darcy discovered following his infamous letter to Miss Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. With the global recession, credit crunch and potential property crash on the horizon, employers will no doubt be looking to restructure and re-organise their organisations with resultant dismissals.

Often, and particularly at senior level, employers do not wish to go through a lengthy, time-consuming procedure and instead will use ‘without prejudice’ or ‘off the record’ approaches to negotiate an employee’s departure. However, difficulties arise when an employee refuses to do a deal and instead attempts to rely on the details of the negotiations as the basis of a claim.

Historically, employees could not adduce as evidence details of without prejudice negotiations: such details were privileged. It is a common approach by employees and, in particular, litigants in person to try and produce letters that were intended to be without prejudice to do the reverse and prejudice their former employer’s position. As recently as February 2008 in the case of Brodie v Ward, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the issue of whether or not an employee can rely upon a without prejudice letter sent by the employer’s solicitors.

The ‘without prejudice’ rule

It is a long-standing tenet of UK law that parties should be encouraged to settle disputes, without recourse to the courts or tribunals. A fundamental aspect of this principle was to allow without prejudice communciations between the parties in an effort to reach settlement. However, in 2004, the EAT held, in the case of BNP Paribas v Mezzotero, that without prejudice discussions that did not arise from a “genuine dispute” could be relied upon by the employee in founding a claim. Furthermore, the EAT held that the fact that the employee had raised a formal grievance did not amount to a genuine dispute. The impact of this was widespread: employers could no longer seek to use the rule without considerable risk. It has also been suggested that a without prejudice conversation or letter could be relied upon to prove that any disciplinary action was pre-judged. One of the results of this could be that any dismissal would be automatically unfair and the award subject to a potential 50% uplift under the 2004 Dispute Resolution Regulations.

However, the Court of Appeal in Framlington Group Limited v Barnetson went a long way to restoring the sanctity of the without prejudice rule in finding that, in the absence of any “unambigous impropriety” – ie, fraud, blackmail or perjury on the part of the employer – without prejudice communications would be excluded from being used as evidence in the proceedings.

Despite the decision of the EAT in Framlington, this did not stop Brodie, in the latest case, trying to rely upon the without prejudice letter from her employer’s solicitors as the “last straw”, entitling her to claim constructive dismissal.

The claim was unsuccessful and the letter was held privileged under the without prejudice rule, so it could not be relied upon to support a case.

So while it appears that employers can safely use without prejudice correspondence and conversations, no doubt employees will continue to seek to rely upon such information. The issue becomes even more complicated when litigants in person refer to both open and privileged matters in correspondence. As a result, the warning to employers is clear: proceed with caution.

Tips and good practice

Employers should not make proposals that are tainted with discrimination, such as using without prejudice discussions to get rid of all women or all employees over, say, 55 years of age. These are extreme examples, but in such instances employees can probably rely upon without prejudice communications as evidence of discrimination.

Avoid putting too much pressure on the employee or using misleading facts. You may be anxious to settle a case, but a settlement achieved under duress may easily unravel.

Despite the reassurance of the recent cases, it would be advisable to use without prejudice proposals with great care outside of an actual dispute. Calling someone in ‘out of the blue’ and presenting them with dismissal terms is fraught with danger. It is also advisable and essential not to introduce proposals too early during any ongoing process. For example, in a redundancy situation don’t introduce proposals before commencing consultation. It is good practice for all employers to make it clear when they are using without prejudice proposals and to separate these from any other open correspondence that forms part of the actual dismissal process, such as an ‘at risk of redundancy’ letter.

As long as it is properly handled, however, it should still be possible for employers to approach employees on a without prejudice basis rather than go through what could be a damaging, time-consuming and pointless disciplinary or dismissal procedure.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Key points

  • Try to ensure there is a genuine dispute between the parties and, if not, proceed with great caution
  • Gather evidence of the actual dispute and watch out for good appraisals when you allege poor performance and or conduct
  • Be careful in the timing of raising without prejudice discussions during ongoing grievance and or disciplinary procedures
  • Ensure all correspondence is marked ‘without prejudice’
  • Do not indiscriminately use without prejudice discussions to remove individuals without good reason or any warning
  • Do not make proposals aggressively, fraudulently or in a manner intended to blackmail the employee
  • Give the employee sufficient time to consider the proposals and see advice
  • Take particular care in discrimination cases

Michael Farrelly, partner at RadcliffesLeBrasseur




Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Performance management and Gen Y: feeding the feedback fervour
next post
Unite union leader warns employers to prepare for war over pay

You may also like

Restaurant tips should be included in holiday pay

21 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+