I had mentioned on here, somewhere, that correspondance, once written Without Prejudice applies to all subsequent correspondance, but my 'spout' tonight was going to be in the context of court proceedings.
Without Prejudice documents can not be relied upon in Court because it means what it says WITHOUT PREJUDICE...it is a tool for negotiation.
I would suggest careful use of the "tool"....it is not the magic potion to protect you....it protects all parties once invoked.
Check the Wiki description :
In many common law jurisdictions such as the United States, the U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, the term "without prejudice" is also used in the course of negotiations to indicate that a particular conversation or letter is not to be tendered as evidence in court; it can be considered a form of privilege.[2] This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation.
Such correspondences must be made in the course of negotiations and must be a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties. It may not be used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court and as such a document marked "without prejudice" that does not actually contain any offer of settlement can be submitted should the matter proceed to court. Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" that do contain offers of settlement.[3][4]
The term "without prejudice save as to costs" is a modification to the above and refers to a communication that cannot be exhibited in court until the end of the trial when the court awards costs to the successful party. This is also referred to as the Calderbank formula, from Calderbank v Calderbank (1976),[2] and exists because UK courts have held that "without prejudice" includes for the purposes of costs, as in Court of Appeal, in Walker v Wilshire (1889):
Letters or conversations written or declared to be "without prejudice" cannot be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a good cause for depriving a successful litigant of costs.