000			01563cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS39962
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u20317
041			_aeng
245			_aRush and Tompkins Ltd v GLC and Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v138(6382) 11 November 1988, 315-316(2)
520			_aHL 2 November 1988 Rush and Tompkins (R) entered into a contract with the GLC for the construction of houses and engaged Careys (C) as subcontractor . A dispute arose between the parties and R issued proceedings against GLC and C. This was settled by payment of £1.2m by GLC and R discontinued its action. C then applied for discovery of the " without prejudice " correspondence which passed between R and GLC leading up to the settlement. R claimed that the correspondence was protected from disclosure. This was upheld by ORC and C appealed to CA who held that the protection given by the "without prejudice" rule ceased once a dispute had been settled. On appeal by C, HL held that "without prejudice" correspondence entered into with the object of reaching a compromise of an action remains privileged after the compromise has been reached and accordingly the correspondence is inadmissable in any subsequent litigation connected with the subject matter whether by the same or different parties
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
650			_aDOCUMENTS
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c13612 _d13612