PI Brief Update

Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

19/03/25. In Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB), District Judge Dodsworth considered whether a letter from the Claimant’s former solicitor, which contained proposals to settle allegations of fundamental dishonesty, could be adduced as evidence.

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident in July 2018, when he was injured while riding a motorcycle hit by the Defendant’s vehicle. Liability was admitted, but the Defendant contended that the Claimant had exaggerated his injuries and acted dishonestly in presenting his case.

The Defendant sought to introduce a letter sent by the Claimant's previous solicitors as evidence, despite it being marked ‘without prejudice’. The Defendant highlighted that the usual rule against ‘without prejudice’ correspondence being admissible was not absolute and could be set aside if the material in question demonstrated ‘unambiguous impropriety’. In this case, the Defendant argued that the letter revealed the Claimant's admission of dishonesty, thus falling under the exception.

The Claimant opposed the letter’s admission. The Claimant argued that the letter did not contain a clear admission; and that, even if it did, it should not be admitted due to the narrow application of the exception.

DDJ Dodsworth concluded that the letter did contain an explicit admission of dishonesty and that allowing it to be excluded would allow the Claimant to benefit from presenting a false case. The court ruled that the letter should be admitted as evidence, as it met the criteria of the ‘unambiguous impropriety’ exception, allowing the public policy interest in preventing fraudulent claims to take precedence over the usual protection for settlement discussions.

This judgment serves as a salutary warning to anyone assuming that the words ‘without prejudice’ provide a full and automatic shield against disclosure of the correspondence.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/michaelpuche