000			01872cab a2200193 4500
001			##L136372
008			070129n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136372
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aAird and another v Prime Meridian Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWCA Civ 1866, 21 December 2006. Considered whether an expert joint statement ordered for the purpose of mediation could be used for another purpose. Respondent C issued proceedings for negligence and breach of duty against appellant P who was employed to provide architect services. The proceedings were stayed for mediation and experts were instructed to prepare a joint statement. A draft joint statement stated to be without prejudice was prepared by the experts but the final joint statement removed the without prejudice statement. When the mediation failed, P tried to use the joint statement in subsequent proceedings on the basis that it was ordered by the court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 35.12. C contended that the joint statement was ordered for the mediation and was therefore privileged and the judge upheld this view. P appealed. "Held": appeal allowed. The statement was a joint statement made pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 35.12 and was not privileged. It therefore did not acquire without prejudice status because it was used in mediation.
650	2	4	_aCIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 35.12
650	2	4	_aAIRD AND ANOTHER V PRIME MERIDIAN LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ASSISTED NEGOTIATION-MEDIATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1866.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78260 _d78260