However, if a « protected conversation » leads a staff member to agree to the signing of a settlement agreement, protection against such claims may be included in the settlement agreement. Without prejudice to the discussions, it is often followed by a settlement agreement which, in turn, offers full protection (to the extent that the law allows it, that is: You cannot prevent them from asserting rights such as pensions or denunciations). As long as there are no accusations of discrimination or whistleblowing, a protected conversation is still not recorded, as is a conversation without prejudice. (So a protected conversation is normally about behavior or ability.) Was there a liability agreement concluded, so that unsevereen privilege no longer applied? This was the main substantive point taken into account in the decision. The court was referred to Walker v Wilshire (1), where Lord Justice Lindley noted that when a letter is sent with the inscription « without prejudice », but the terms of the letter are then accepted, a full contract is concluded and the letter, although written without prejudice, « changes the old state of affairs and [creates a new state] ». . . .
Categories: Non classé