Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- LORD MANCE
- LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD
- LORD HOFFMANN
- Sir Martin agreed:
- LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Bradford & Bingley Plc v. Rashid
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A, a mortgage lender, sold the mortgaged property of Defendant in October 1991 leaving an outstanding shortfall of approximately £15,583. After several years of inactivity, Company A wrote in 2001 asking Defendant to propose a repayment plan. Two letters were then sent on Defendant’s behalf by Company B on 26 September 2001 and 4 October 2001. Each letter referred to an “outstanding balance/amount” and sought time or a reduction.
Company A issued proceedings on 17 June 2003. Defendant pleaded limitation under sections 20(1) and 20(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. A Deputy District Judge admitted the 26 September letter as an acknowledgment under section 29(5) and entered judgment for Company A. A Circuit Judge, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, reversed that decision, holding both letters inadmissible under the “without prejudice” rule. Company A appealed to the final court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the two 2001 letters were inadmissible because they were impliedly “without prejudice.”
- Whether the letters contained a valid acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, thereby restarting the limitation period.
Arguments of the Parties
Company A’s Arguments
- The letters were not part of any settlement of a disputed liability but merely sought indulgence on repayment; therefore the “without prejudice” rule did not apply.
- References to an “outstanding balance/amount” were unequivocal acknowledgments that satisfied section 29(5), so the claim was not time-barred.
Defendant’s Arguments
- The correspondence formed part of negotiations for possible concessions and was therefore protected by the “without prejudice” rule.
- The letters did not admit a specific sum and thus could not constitute a statutory acknowledgment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| Spencer v Hemmerde [1922] 2 AC 507 | Effect of acknowledgment on limitation | Illustrated fairness concerns where debtor seeks time then pleads limitation; used to support admissibility of acknowledgments. |
| Dungate v Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477 | General admission suffices; amount may be proved extrinsically | Followed to hold that letters referencing an “outstanding balance” were sufficient acknowledgments. |
| Good v Parry [1963] 2 QB 418 | When a statement is too equivocal to be an acknowledgment | Distinguished; the letters here were clear, not equivocal. |
| Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 1 WLR 565 | Need for unequivocal admission of legal liability | Cited in support of finding unequivocal acknowledgment. |
| West Bromwich BS v Wilkinson [2005] 1 WLR 2303 | When limitation starts on mortgage shortfall | Used to date the original limitation period from last payment in January 1991. |
| Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290 | Public-policy basis of the without-prejudice rule | Formed part of analysis of whether the rule should protect the letters. |
| Rush & Tompkins Ltd v GLC [1989] AC 1280 | Scope of “without prejudice” privilege | Relied on for the requirement of a genuine dispute when invoking the privilege. |
| Unilever plc v Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436 | Recognised exceptions to the privilege | Cited in distinguishing situations where statements are admissible for other purposes. |
| Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] 1 PNLR 74 | Admissibility of without-prejudice material for ancillary issues | Considered but court preferred narrower view; acknowledgment not mere ancillary use. |
| Savings & Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [2004] 1 WLR 667 | High threshold for disapplying privilege | Supported conclusion that privilege arises only where there is a dispute to settle. |
| Watson-Towers Ltd v McPhail 1986 SLT 617 (Scot.) | Scottish approach to separating admissions from offers | Discussed but regarded as going too far for English law. |
| Daks Simpson Group plc v Kuiper 1994 SLT 689 (Scot.) | Same as above | Same. |
| Richardson v Quercus 1999 SC 278 (Scot.) | Acknowledgment despite “without prejudice” label | Examined comparatively; not adopted. |
| Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 | Distinction between evidencing truth and evidencing fact of statement | Referred to in theoretical discussion but not decisive. |
| Turner v Railton (1796) 2 Esp 474 | Early authority on admissions and compromise | Cited historically to show no privilege where debt admitted. |
| Jones v Foxall (1852) 15 Beav 388 | Courts disfavour dissecting offers to find admissions | Supported reluctance to admit parts of negotiations selectively. |
| Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378 | Hearsay rule applies only to truth of statement | Considered in debate over whether acknowledgment used as evidence of fact. |
| Kapeller v Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie 1964 (4) SA 722 | South-African view allowing admission to restart limitation | Compared but not determinative for English law. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court stressed two competing public policies: (1) encouraging candid settlement discussions protected by the without-prejudice rule; and (2) preventing debtors who admit liability from defeating creditors by allowing limitation periods to expire while negotiations proceed.
It found that the “without prejudice” doctrine only applies where communications are aimed at settling a genuine dispute about liability or quantum. Here, liability was never disputed; the letters merely requested indulgence in time or amount. Therefore, no privilege attached.
Turning to section 29(5), the court approved past authority that a simple acknowledgment of indebtedness, even without specifying the sum, is sufficient so long as the amount can later be proved. References to “outstanding balance” and “outstanding amount” were unequivocal admissions. Accordingly, the letters restarted the twelve-year period, making the 2003 claim timely.
Alternative broader theories—either carving admissions out of privileged negotiations or treating acknowledgments as non-testimonial acts—were discussed in the separate opinions but the majority disposed of the appeal on the narrower ground above.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The decision of the Deputy District Judge entering judgment for Company A was restored.
Implications: The ruling clarifies that communications seeking only indulgence on payment of an undisputed debt are not protected by the without-prejudice rule, preserving the statutory acknowledgment doctrine. It does not alter the privilege where there is a genuine dispute, but warns that clear acknowledgments can and will restart limitation even if made in the context of repayment discussions.
Click here to read the full judgment