Litigation lawyers

Without Prejudice privilege – Australian law

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsWithout Prejudice privilege – Australian law

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

The term “Without Prejudice” is often added to correspondence sent in a commercial setting without considering whether “privilege” actually attaches.  It’s possible that correspondence clearly marked as being “Without Prejudice” is actually admissible as evidence and alternatively that documents that omit the statement are actually subject to privilege because they are in the course of negotiating a settlement.

What is the “Without Prejudice Privilege”

Communication between two people that is Without Prejudice is generally thought of as being  inadmissible as evidence in a Court.  In commercial negotiations it is also thought to mean that communications are not intended to ‘prejudice’ a parties rights.  Communications which are Without Prejudice are not admissible as evidence in a Court.

What is the source of the law?

Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides that evidence of settlement negotiations is not to be adduced.  Specifically section 131(1) provides that:

Evidence is not to be adduced of:

(a) a communication that is made between persons in dispute, or between one or more persons in dispute and a third party, in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute; or

(b) a document (whether delivered or not) that has been prepared in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute”.

Exceptions to without prejudice privilege

The common law exceptions are largely codified in section 131(2) and include:

  • where the persons in dispute consent;
  • the substance of the evidence has been disclosed with the express or implied consent of all persons in dispute;
  • the communication or document expressly communicated that it was admissible as evidence;
  • the evidence tends to contradict or to qualify evidence that has already been admitted about the course of an attempt to settle the dispute; or
  • where the non-admission of the evidence is is likely to mislead the court because of an inference made unless evidence of the communication is
  • evidence that has been adduced in the proceeding, or an inference from evidence that has been adduced in the proceeding, is likely to mislead the court unless evidence of the communication or document is adduced to contradict or to qualify that evidence; or
  • where the communication or document is relevant to determine liability for costs;
  • where making the communication or preparing the document affects a right of a person; or
  • the communication or document was prepared, in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence or the commission;
  • where the document was prepared in furtherance of a deliberate abuse of a power.

View the complete section at 131(2).

The common law

Perhaps the most authoritative decision on Without Prejudice privilege is provided in the judgement of Dixon C.J.,Webb, Kitto and Taylor JJ in  Field v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1957] HCA 92.  The case which was on appeal from the New South Wales Supreme Court, concerned the admissibility of evidence from a medical practitioner and whether the communication was privileged because is was in the course of “Without Prejudice” negotiations:

As a matter of policy the law has long excluded from evidence admissions by words or conduct made by parties in the course of negotiations to settle litigation. The purpose is to enable parties engaged in an attempt to compromise litigation to communicate with one another freely and without the embarrassment which the liability of their communications to be put in evidence subsequently might impose upon them. The law relieves them of this embarrassment so that their negotiations to avoid litigation or to settle it may go on unhampered. This form of privilege, however, is directed against the admission in evidence of express or implied admissions. It covers admissions by words or conduct. For example, neither party can use the readiness of the other to negotiate as an implied admission. It is not concerned with objective facts which may be ascertained during the course of negotiations. These may be proved by direct evidence. But it is concerned with the use of the negotiations or what is said in the course of them as evidence by way of admission“.

In both case law and statute the common theme is that the privilege attaches to the communication where there is an attempt to negotiate a settlement of a dispute.  The policy reason for the privilege of the communications is clear, the application in some instances can become more problematic.  Attaching the heading “Without Prejudice” does not necessarily mean that the document cannot be adduced as evidence.

Further information

If you need assistance with litigation and disputes, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about litigation and disputes

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note). 

    Read more …

  • Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases

    Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent).  The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…

    Read more …

  • Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores

    On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments.  The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…

    Read more …

  • What is a concise statement?

    What is a concise statement?

    A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1]  Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016.  Its stated purpose…

    Read more …

  • Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders

    Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders

    The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders.  The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…

    Read more …

  • Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal

    Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal

    Article 26 (Article 26) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) empowers an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) to appoint its own expert in a dispute.[1]  The expert’s role is to create a report and provide oral testimony.  While parties may appoint their own experts, doing so can contravene principles of impartiality and…

    Read more …

  • Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression

    Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression

    Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.

    Read more …


Posted

in

Send this to a friend