costs

What does “Without Prejudice” mean?

Have you ever received a letter or email with the words “without prejudice” or “without prejudice except as to costs” on it? Perhaps your lawyer has sent one on your behalf? Do you even know what it means?

It is advantageous for parties to try to resolve that dispute prior to incurring the significant costs and taking on the substantial risks that are involved with litigation. In having those settlement discussions or in making offers of settlement, parties may be disinclined to make admissions or concessions for fear that they may be used against them by the other party. This is where the concept of “without prejudice’ helps.

“Without prejudice” is a common law concept (now covered by statute since the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act) was enacted) that communications marked as being “without prejudice” cannot be used by the other party as evidence in Court. This means that parties can speak openly about the matters in dispute without the risk of the other party using that offer against them later.

If you do want to be able to use the communications, you would not mark them as being “without prejudice” – you would want them to remain “open”.

So why the “except as to costs” or “save as to costs” part? Well, the privilege afforded by s131 of the Act that the communications cannot be placed into evidence does not apply to when the Court has to determine who is responsible for the costs of the litigation (ie, after the dispute has been resolved or determined by the court when entering a judgment).

In addition to these “without prejudice” communications, the various Courts have their own rules that provide for formal Offers of Compromise and the like and that govern the effect of not accepting an offer that you otherwise ought to have (the idea being to seek to have the parties really turn their mind to settling, and not wasting their own, the other party’s and the Court’s time and resources).

Ordinarily in litigation, the rule is that the losing party pays the winning party’s costs. The rules operate to change that where formal offers have been made and not accepted.

As an overly simple scenario by way of example, if an offer was made by Party A that Party B did not accept and at the hearing, Party A received a judgment for an amount equal to better than their offer, Party B can be penalized in the form of a costs order for the failure to accept that offer.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Craig Pryor is principal solicitor at McKillop Legal.

For further information in relation to any legal dispute or litigation matter, contact Craig Pryor on (02) 9521 2455 or email craig@mckilloplegal.com.au

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice.  Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your needs.

Stay up to date – LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

in Business / Commercial Law / Dispute Resolution / General / Litigation / Risk management  by 01 Dec 2019 0 comments

Forcing the sale of land in NSW

Where land is owned by multiple people (whether as joint tenants or tenants in common), any one of the owners can approach the Supreme Court to seek an order for the appointment of a trustee for sale and for the property to be sold.

Ordinarily, the owners can come to agreement on the need for a sale and the basis on which it is to be conducted. For example, following some negotiations or a mediation, the co-owners may agree to:

  • sale by auction with an agreed reserve price;
  • sale by public treaty with an agreed price; or
  • sale by one owner to another, with agreement on how the price is determined (such as agreeing on a valuer or methodology).

When co-owners are in a dispute however as to whether a property should be sold, when and on what terms, the provisions of section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) can be utilized to force the sale of the property, even where the other owner (or owners) do not want to sell it.

Once appointed, the trustee has the legal power to sell the property on the best terms available and to engage real estate agents, valuers and lawyers/conveyancers as may be required. So as to help ensure that the property sells for fair market value and to avoid any breach of trust allegations from any of the owners for not obtaining the best price possible, it is sensible for a trustee to sell at public auction

A usual order made is that the unsuccessful party (usually the defendant/respondent) pays the plaintiff /applicant’s legal costs. The costs risk arising from litigation (which can be substantial in amount) is usually a key factor in out of court settlements being made.

Applications for the appointment of a statutory trustee for sale are generally only refused in special circumstances, such as where the is a prior agreement not to sell, around the terms of any sale or to sell only when certain conditions are met (which is why any co-ownership agreements ought to be in writing as verbal evidence can be less persuasive).

Usually, after a successful application is made and the property is sold, the proceeds of sale after payment of:

  • any encumbrances (such as mortgages and unregistered mortgages secured by caveats);
  • the costs of sale (real estate agent and auctioneer fees and marketing costs etc); and
  • the trustee’s costs

are held on trust by the appointed trustee and then distributed proportionally according to ownership.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Craig Pryor is principal solicitor at McKillop Legal. For further information in relation to family disagreements in relation to land or estates or any business or commercial dispute, contact Craig Pryor on (02) 9521 2455 or email craig@mckilloplegal.com.au.

This information is general only and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Please contact McKillop Legal to discuss your legal needs.

Stay up to date - LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

in Business / Commercial Law / Dispute Resolution / General / Property / Trusts  by 01 Oct 2018 0 comments