[2006] EWHC 2338 (TCC). For the purpose of mediation the Judge required that the parties' architectural experts meet and prepare a statement of the issues upon which they are agreed and disagreed, with a brief statement of the reasons. The Claimants sought to amend their pleadings in a way that was inconsistent with the views expressed by their expert in the statement, and the Defendants objected to these amendments. The Claimants claimed that, since the statement had been produced for the mediation, it was a 'without prejudice' document and thus privileged. Therefore, they maintained that no reference could be made to it. The Defendants sought a declaration that the statement is not a 'without prejudice' document, and that it can be referred to in the ongoing litigation. "Held": the judge only made the order for the assistance of the parties in the mediation and the Claimants' solicitor and the Claimants' expert acted on that basis. As a result, in this case, the prima facie position was that the document was privileged. The Defendants' alternative argument failed. The inconsistency between the statement and the new pleadings, could not amount to an abuse of the privileged occasion or unambiguous impropriety.