Description
Smith J held that without prejudice exchanges between parties that preceded the conclusion of a settlement agreement should be admissible not only to identify the terms of the settlement agreement but also as to the meaning of those terms. There was no cogent reason of public policy or otherwise for distinguishing between the two and in practice, it would be difficult to draw such a distinction in many cases. Moreover, the interests of justice required the meaning of the terms of a settlement agreement to be ascertained with reference to the without prejudice exchanges.
