000			01878cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS68824
008			050324n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129157
100			_aBrewer, G.
245			_aApplication of the term 'without prejudice'
260			_c2005
490			_aContract Journal _v427(6514) 2 March 2005, 24(1)
520			_aDiscusses "Schering Corporation v Cipla Ltd and another" ([2004] EWHC 2587 (Ch), Times 2 December 2004) which looked at the application of the term without prejudice, when applied to documents. Cipla (C) had written a letter to Schering (S), marked without prejudice, which stated that it wished to launch a product. C was aware of S's patent on a related product and did not want to embark on confrontation without seeking a commercial solution. S did not respond and instigated HC proceedings, alleging infringement of its patent based on the contents of the letter. C said the contents of the letter were privileged and S had no basis for its HC proceedings. Court decided the main point was to determine whether or not the communication was intended to be part of or to promote negotiations. Concluded that it was a negotiating document and was covered by the without prejudice privilege. S was not entitled to refer to it as the particulars of an infringement and the case was dismissed. Concludes documents prepared for the purpose of negotiation, whether or not labelled without prejudice, may be privileged from disclosure in subsequent proceedings.
590			_aABS
650			_aSCHERING CORPORATION V CIPLA LTD AND ANOTHER
650			_aWITHOUT PREJUDICE
650			_aNEGOTIATION
650			_aSTANDRIN AND ANOTHER V YENTON MINSTER HOLMES LTD AND OTHERS
650			_aCUTTS V HEAD
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c74974 _d74974