FANDOM


FactsEdit

In negotiating separation agreement, the parties' lawyers conducted meetings on behalf of their clients and with their clients in attendance. Additional correspondence on a "without prejudice" basis discussing modification to the agreement was exchanged by both parties. On August 29, 1996 Mr. Chapman's lawyer sent a letter confirming Mr. Chapman had agreed to a $30,000 all inclusive payment from his pension plan. On the same date, Mrs. Chapman's lawyer responded accepting the agreement. On September 4th Mr. Chapman's lawyer sent a letter saying she had heard from Mr. Chapman by telephone on the 3rd saying the settlement was "off". Mrs. Chapman maintains that a binding agreement was reached.

IssueEdit

  1. Was a binding agreement reached?

DecisionEdit

Judgement for the petitioner.

ReasonsEdit

While comments on the exchanges between the lawyers indicating the correspondence was "without prejudice" (which renders them inadmissible at trial), once an agreement was reached, that privilege is removed. In analysing whether an agreement was made, Goodfellow looks at whether the other party could now deny that a settlement was reached. Finding no ambiguity or chance of mistake, he concludes that the settlement is final and finds for the petitioner.

RatioEdit

Once an agreement is reached, "without prejudice" materials are admissible.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.