The prejudice-free regime prevents statements that are brought to justice as part of a genuine attempt to resolve an existing dispute. But if long after the negotiations failed and the disputes began, it prevented the parties from making the negotiations unscathed, because at the time, it could not be said that there was an “existing dispute”? To what extent should the failed negotiations be on the eve of the start of the trial? Without prejudice to a legal term meant “without prejudice to a right or claim.” In the non-legal word, this means that everything that is said or done on an unprejudiced basis cannot be used later to your detriment if you decide to assert a right against your employer in an employment tribunal. This does not mean that you should not set out the facts you rely on to negotiate. You should do it, but you can do it, while you are still not making any prejudicial charges against designated persons, particularly those who have the power to offer you a transaction contract. My duties include reviewing the submissions issued by the complainants, negotiating comparisons, developing, filing and defending our client, and preparing trials. Transaction agreements do not benefit from a non-harm scheme. However, this does not affect the unaffected status of previous negotiations that resulted in a transaction agreement (unless an accepted and accepted offer without prejudice is part of the transaction agreement). Without a priori, correspondence should not be confused with privileged information. There is a clear difference, not least because privileged information is normally information that only one party has and does not want to disclose to the other party, while the correspondence is without prejudice to information that was disclosed during negotiations between the two parties and is therefore known to both parties.
In the absence of prejudice, correspondence is closer to quasi-privilege, as it could be considered part of contractual laws based on a tacit agreement between the two parties to protect disclosure from disclosure.6 The more you reproach and charge in an unprejudiced letter, the more your employer will defend these charges: it is natural to defend yourself when you are charged. They will probably continue to study, and that will produce even more letters. The opposite also applies – simply with the label “without prejudice” will not guarantee confidentiality – here too, it is the content and intent of the document or discussion that will be decisive.