000			01976cab a2200205 4500
001			L136200
008			070117n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136200
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aRobert Aide and Karen Aide v Prime Meridian Ltd
260			_c2006
520			_a[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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aROBERT AIDE AND ANOTHER V PRIME MERIDIAN LTD
650	2	4	_aFORSTER V FRIEDLAND
650	2	4	_aFAZIL-ALIZADEH V NIKBIN
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ASSISTED NEGOTIATION-MEDIATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/2338.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78189 _d78189