Small Claims Court Secret Recordings

DoaM

waamo wrote: »

Of course life isn't perfect but if the evidence is pretty overwhelming I think a good attempt at avoiding court is the best path.

Indeed. Hence the WPSATC letter. If they allow it to proceed to court, and the OP wins, then the judge will see that (based on what the OP tells us) they had no possibility of successfully defending the claim so he/she may be more willing to accept extended costs due to wasting court time. The letter will show that the OP did what they could to avoid this getting to the hearing stage.

Jumblebumble

DoaM wrote: »

Huh? If OP sends such a letter, confirms they have a recording and provides a transcript of it ... how in any way could that be construed as the OP admitting guilt? Edit: Also, the other party would not be able to present such a letter as evidence, except after the judgment when costs were being determined. (Unless they asked to be able to present it and the judge agreed. Even so, based on the facts presented by the OP then any such letter would not be detrimental to the OP).

What happened in your case was based on your circumstances - you can't transpose that to a case with materially different facts.

Exactly
Thanks for confirming that a without without prejudice offer can under some circumstances be used in court if the judge agrees.

Most people would perpetuate the myth put forward by websites such as expertHR.co.uk
who ought to know better who state

"More importantly, marking a letter "without prejudice" means that it cannot later be admitted in evidence before a court or employment tribunal without the consent of both parties concerned,"


which as you have agreed is complete rubbish and people might be cautious

DoaM

I don't think any of us here disputed that ... it was your cautionary tale implying that the OP would be at a detriment by doing so that we disagreed with.

Undervalued

Jumblebumble wrote: »

Exactly
Thanks for confirming that a without without prejudice offer can under some circumstances be used in court if the judge agrees.

Most people would perpetuate the myth put forward by websites such as expertHR.co.uk
who ought to know better who state

"More importantly, marking a letter "without prejudice" means that it cannot later be admitted in evidence before a court or employment tribunal without the consent of both parties concerned,"


which as you have agreed is complete rubbish and people might be cautious

As I understand it comes down to whether in the judge's opinion the letter was genuinely "without prejudice". Just simply putting those words on a letter which is plainly not "without prejudice" is insufficient.

The same can apply to "in full and final settlement" where it was an attempt to mislead or get a derisory amount accepted without proper consideration of the implications.