Settle 'without prejudice'....?

Hxc · 11 Feb 2013 at 20:58

Hi all

As some of you may remember I got hit by a van a while back. As it was his word against mine it was very difficult to get anything done insurance wise but I had a third party solicitor acting on my behalf in case anything could get done. I am *not* a whiplash claimer, I am trying to get the cost of repairing my car fully back as I was 100% not at fault (he ran a red).

The solicitor has told me the other insurer has decided to settle in my favour on a 'without prejudice' basis, which means that they are not admitting fault, but are willing to pay out.

I don't entirely understand this, nor what the implications are.... could anyone advise me? I know I should ask the solicitor but they are one of these ones designed specifically for car related incidents and seem keen to settle straight off and be done with me.

Cheers.

Jono · 11 Feb 2013 at 21:05

I'm pretty sure it means once you accept their offer you have no rights to go back later and say "oh but this ..... "

and it won't stand up in court if you have issue later. But I don't know. I forget. I had that term thrown at me once in a meeting .... apparently it meant whatever was said in that meeting could go no further than the people in the meeting/outside of that room/time.

Participant · 11 Feb 2013 at 22:58

This really is one of those 'just google it' threads. It's not that complicated.

[TW]Fox · 11 Feb 2013 at 23:09

Jono said:
I'm pretty sure it means once you accept their offer you have no rights to go back later and say "oh but this ..... "

No, it doesn't.

Effectively it just means that you can't use his offer as evidence in court should you decide at a later date to take it to court. So the letter itself cannot be used as proof it was his fault (But his actions or any other evidence you have might still be able to).

apparently it meant whatever was said in that meeting could go no further than the people in the meeting/outside of that room/time.

It didn't. It just meant that anything said couldn't be used as evidence in future proceedings.

BigT · 11 Feb 2013 at 23:18

What Fox says.

Their insurer wants to settle, but just in case you refuse their settlement offer and go to court you can't use this offer against them as proof they think they are liable.