000			01525cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS38795
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u12420
041			_aeng
245			_aRush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and P J Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v138(6341) 29 January 1988, 22-23(2)
520			_aCA 21 December 1987. Appeal by second defendant (P) against official referee`s decision in favour of plaintiff (R) who claimed that `without prejudice` correspondence which had passed between R and the first defendant G was privileged. P had applied for discovery of the documents. R had entered into a contract with G for the construction of 639 dwellings. P were engaged as subcontractors. When a dispute arose R commenced proceedings against G and P. When an agreement was reached between R and G, P applied for discovery of the without prejudice correspondence leading up to the agreement. R contended that the correspondence was privileged because it had been written without prejudice and the official referee upheld R`s claim. On appeal, the rule concerning privilege of without prejudice documents and the meaning of `without prejudice` was considered. CA concluded that 1) the privilege afforded by the correspondence between R and G came to an end when that correspondence came to fruitio
650			_aCUTTS V HEAD
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c7937 _d7937