The Court held that general, conclusionary affidavit evidence not tied to specific documents is insufficient to substantiate a claim of without prejudice privilege, and that the Court should decline to inspect documents where the claiming party was on notice of evidentiary deficiencies but failed to rectify them. However, where a deponent who was personally involved in the negotiations reviewed the documents and gave more specifically worded evidence that communications were exchanged 'in furtherance of' without prejudice discussions, this was sufficient to establish privilege at least prima facie, and the Court confirmed the claim upon inspection. On waiver, the Court held that without prejudice privilege is a joint privilege and the conduct of one negotiating party — including discovery, production, or use of documents in separate proceedings — does not ordinarily preclude the other negotiating party from maintaining the privilege.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.