[2006] UKHL 37, 12 July 2006. The appellant bank claimed the shortfall due from the respondent (Rashid) on a joint mortgage debt he had incurred with a relation. The shortfall had arisen following a forced sale in the last property recession. Rashid's only defence was that the claim was statute-barred, the original default having arisen more than 12 years before the issue of the claim. The judge held that a letter written by an advice centre on Rashid's behalf, explaining that he could not afford to pay "the outstanding balance", had acknowledged the debt, and that therefore, under the Limitation Act 1980 S29(5) time had begun to run afresh from the date of the letter and the proceedings were not statute-barred. The judge concluded that a second letter offering a lesser sum in settlement had been written impliedly without prejudice and so was inadmissible. The Court of Appeal concluded that both letters had been written impliedly without prejudice and were inadmissible. Rashid submitted that in neither letter had the debt been admitted and that unless there was an admission of a definite amount due or an amount ascertainable by mere calculation there was no acknowledgment for the purposes of the Act. "Held": it was decided that each of the letters constituted a clear acknowledgement of the debt. The without prejudice rule had no application to apparently open communications, such as those in this case, that were designed only to discuss the repayment of an admitted liability rather than to negotiate and compromise a disputed liability. The letters did not contain statements or offers made with a view to settling a dispute; as the debt was admitted, there was no dispute. The bank's appeal was allowed.