Dispute Resolution Roundup- March 2025

In Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB), District Judge Dodsworth (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the ‘unambiguous impropriety’ exception to the without prejudice rule in relation to a letter from the claimant’s solicitors, marked ‘Without prejudice save as to costs’.

The Law 

Without prejudice correspondence is inadmissible as evidence, a principle rooted in public policy to encourage parties to settle disputes rather than proceed to litigation. As Lord Griffiths explained in Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, the rule exists to allow litigants to negotiate freely without fear of their statements being used against them. Similarly, Oliver LJ reaffirmed this in Cutts v Head [1984] Ch. 290 at [306].

However, the without prejudice rule is not absolute. One established exception applies where excluding such material would conceal perjury, blackmail, or other ‘unambiguous impropriety.’ This was articulated by Robert Walker LJ in Unilever PLC v The Procter & Gamble Company [2000] 1 WLR 2436. Courts have consistently emphasised that this exception should only be applied in the clearest cases of abuse, as seen in Foster v Friedland and Fazil-Alizadeh v Nikbin (1993 CAT 205). This cautious approach has also been reiterated in Motorola Solutions Inc & Others v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd & Another [2021] EWCA Civ 11 (Males LJ) and Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16 (Lord Hope).

Background and Parties’ Arguments

The claimant brought a personal injury claim against the defendant. In its amended defence, the defendant alleged that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in exaggerating his injuries. The defendant applied for an order compelling the claimant to respond to a Part 18 request and sought permission to adduce the letter as evidence.

The defendant argued that the letter contained admissions by the claimant which supported the allegations of fundamental dishonesty, relying on the unambiguous impropriety exception to the without prejudice rule. The claimant contended that the letter, when properly analysed, did not contain any admission of fundamental dishonesty and, even if it did, it was not sufficiently clear to fall within the exception.

Decision

The judge confirmed that the letter would ordinarily be privileged, given that it was marked ‘Without prejudice save as to costs’. Before determining whether the unambiguous impropriety exception applied, he first considered whether the letter contained an admission. Noting that the letter had been drafted by experienced solicitors, he found that it contained a clear admission that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in presenting his case.

The judge then considered whether the letter fell within the unambiguous impropriety exception. He concluded that it did, stating:

‘I have found the letter to be a clear admission of fundamental dishonesty on the part of the claimant. That goes well beyond, say, an acceptance that the claimant has over-egged his injuries, or their effects on his day-to-day activities, or a concession that some aspects of his case may be difficult to prove. All of those might be things said in usual exchanges in the context of without prejudice negotiations and which would fall to be protected by the without prejudice rule as they do not demonstrate unambiguous impropriety. Here the line has been crossed.’

The judge explained that in this instance, the public policy arguments favouring full disclosure outweighed the policy considerations underpinning the without prejudice rule. While allowing parties to speak candidly in settlement negotiations is crucial, it does not extend to protecting clear admissions of fundamental dishonesty.

Conclusion

The decision in Morris v Williams serves as a valuable reminder of the scope and application of the unambiguous impropriety exception. While the without prejudice rule is a fundamental protection to encourage settlement discussions, it is not absolute. Where correspondence contains clear admissions of fundamental dishonesty, the need for full disclosure and justice takes precedence. This case underscores the importance of careful drafting in without prejudice communications and highlights the narrow but significant role of the unambiguous impropriety exception in ensuring transparency in litigation.

The government’s housing reforms bring significant legal and operational changes for landlords, with the aim of creating a fairer rental market. While these changes prioritise tenant protections, they also impose new responsibilities and restrictions on landlords. Understanding these reforms is essential for landlords to protect their interests and remain compliant.

Here’s what landlords need to know and how they can prepare.

a. Abolition of Section 21 “No-Fault” Evictions

The removal of Section 21, which allowed landlords to evict tenants without providing a reason, represents a major shift. Moving forward, landlords will need to rely on Section 8, which requires a valid, legally defined ground for eviction, such as rent arrears or tenant misconduct.

The abolition of no-fault evictions means eviction processes may become more time-consuming and complex. Landlords must document tenant breaches meticulously and follow proper procedures to avoid disputes or delays. Seeking legal advice early in potential disputes will be key to regaining possession of properties efficiently.

b. Stricter Property Standards

The proposed application of the Decent Homes Standard to private rental properties will require landlords to ensure that their properties are free from serious hazards, are in good repair, and have modern facilities.

For landlords, this could mean investing in upgrades to meet these standards. Non-compliance could result in penalties or enforcement actions from local authorities. Planning for potential renovations and budgeting accordingly will help minimise financial strain.

c. Tighter Rules on Rent Increases

Proposals to regulate rent increases will limit landlords to one rent adjustment per year and require justification for the increase. While this change aims to protect tenants from sudden or excessive hikes, it may also impact landlords’ ability to respond to inflation or rising maintenance costs.

To navigate this, landlords should implement transparent rent-setting practices and clearly communicate any planned increases to tenants. Keeping detailed records of property expenses and market trends will help support fair rent adjustments.

d. Discrimination and No Department of Social Security (“DSS”) Policies

Recent legal rulings have highlighted that blanket bans on tenants receiving benefits are discriminatory. Landlords must now assess all applicants on an individual basis, regardless of their income source, to comply with equality laws.

To reduce risk, landlords should adopt robust referencing systems and ensure that tenancy decisions are based on objective criteria, such as affordability and credit history, rather than assumptions about benefit recipients.

e. Increased Enforcement and Penalties

The reforms are expected to enhance local authorities’ powers to enforce compliance, including issuing higher fines for breaches of licensing, safety, and housing standards.

Landlords should review their compliance with legal requirements, including gas and electrical safety checks, licensing obligations, and tenancy deposit protection. Regular audits and professional advice can help mitigate risks and avoid costly penalties.

Protecting Landlords’ Interests

These reforms represent a challenging transition for landlords, but with the right strategies, they can adapt successfully. By staying informed, maintaining strong documentation, and seeking professional legal advice when needed, landlords can safeguard their investments and operate within the new legal framework.

Preparation is critical and landlords who proactively address these changes will be better positioned to manage risks, maintain tenant relationships, and ensure long-term profitability in a shifting rental market.

The Labour Government has announced plans to ban the sale of new leasehold flats in England and Wales, replacing them with a system called commonhold. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook described leasehold as ‘feudal,’ arguing that it subjects homeowners to unfair costs and restrictions. The proposed reform, outlined in a government white paper, aims to make commonhold the default tenure for new flats by 2029, subject to parliamentary approval.

What is Leasehold?

Leasehold is the current legal structure for most flats in England and Wales, where homeowners buy a lease for a set period (often 99 or 125 years) but do not own the land or building. Instead, a freeholder retains ownership and charges leaseholders service fees for maintenance, as well as ground rent in some cases. Shorter leases can reduce property values and require expensive renewals.

Problems with Leasehold

Leaseholders often face high service charges, lack transparency over costs, and restrictions on their properties, such as bans on pets or renovations. The process of extending leases or collectively purchasing the freehold can also be expensive and legally complex.

What is Commonhold? 

Commonhold is a form of property ownership where flat owners collectively own and manage their building without a freeholder. Each owner holds the freehold of their unit and shares responsibility for maintaining communal areas through a ‘commonhold association.’ This system, widely used in other countries, removes the need for lease extensions and provides owners with greater control over costs and management decisions.

Pros and Cons of Commonhold

Advantages:

• Homeowners gain full ownership of their property without lease renewal concerns.
• They have a say in service charges and building management.
• It eliminates ground rents and excessive freeholder control.

Challenges:

• Owners must take responsibility for building upkeep and finances.
• Disagreements over maintenance and costs could lead to disputes.
• Some experts warn that self-managed blocks may suffer from poor maintenance.

Impact on Existing Leaseholders 

The proposed ban applies only to new flats, meaning existing leaseholders will remain under the current system. While converting leasehold buildings to commonhold is legally possible, it is currently rare due to the complexity and cost. The government has pledged to explore ways to simplify this process, but issues remain—such as how to proceed if some leaseholders in a building want to convert while others do not.

Will Leasehold Properties Lose Value?

There are concerns that leasehold flats may become less attractive compared to commonhold properties in the future. However, experts note that leasehold will still be the norm for many years, and changes could take time to implement. Despite the shift, leasehold remains a viable property tenure, and existing owners are advised to stay informed and seek legal advice if needed.

Should You Avoid Buying a Leasehold Flat Now?

Buyers may wonder if they should wait for commonhold to become standard, but experts suggest this is unnecessary. The transition to commonhold will take years, and leasehold properties will remain widespread for the foreseeable future. Additionally, commonhold in the UK is relatively untested, and potential issues may emerge as it becomes more common.

Conclusion

Labour’s proposed ban on new leasehold flats aims to provide homeowners with more control and security through commonhold. However, existing leaseholders will not be automatically transitioned, and challenges remain in making commonhold a widely accepted alternative. While the reforms could reshape the property market, leasehold flats will continue to exist, and buyers should weigh their options carefully.

The Land Registration Act 2002 was expected to diminish the role of adverse possession, but the recent case of Brown v Ridley has revived discussions about its application. At the heart of the case is the interpretation of paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6, which requires an applicant to have held a “reasonable belief” in their ownership for a continuous 10-year period before applying for adverse possession. The case challenges the ruling in Zarb v Parry (2011), which stated that this 10-year period must immediately precede the application date.

The Issue at Stake 

The problem with Zarb v Parry’s interpretation is that once an applicant realises they do not legally own the land, they no longer hold a reasonable belief, making it difficult to meet the requirement. As a result, the courts have effectively introduced a grace period, allowing applicants a short window to submit their claim after discovering the true ownership. However, there is uncertainty about how short this period should be—whether it must be immediate or if a few months is acceptable.

In Brown v Ridley, the Court of Appeal upheld Zarb v Parry as binding but suggested that it was likely wrongly decided. The court favoured a broader interpretation, where the 10-year period of reasonable belief could occur at any time, not just before the application. If the Supreme Court adopts this view, it could make adverse possession easier to claim, potentially undermining the certainty that the Land Registration Act 2002 aimed to establish.

Impact on Landowners and Legal Certainty 

A shift toward allowing any past 10-year period could create challenges for registered title owners. They may struggle to contest adverse possession claims if evidence from older conveyancing files is unavailable. This could increase uncertainty in land ownership and open the door to more claims.

The debate also ties into broader concerns about land registration. Critics argue that aspects of the system, such as the “general boundaries” rule, already create uncertainty. The issue of adverse possession further highlights the need for clarity in property law.

Possible Solutions and Supreme Court Outlook

One potential solution is to impose a fixed deadline—such as two months—within which applicants must file for adverse possession after their reasonable belief ceases. This approach would maintain fairness for landowners while still allowing claims based on genuine belief. However, legislative amendments to address this issue are unlikely in the near future.

The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether it takes a strict approach, maintaining the requirement that the 10-year period must immediately precede the application, or a more flexible one that allows past periods of reasonable belief. Whatever the outcome, the case underscores the need for a clearer and more efficient land registration system in the UK.

A group of approximately 1,200 caravan owners has initiated legal proceedings against various holiday park operators, alleging unfair commercial practices. The claimants argue that they were misled about the financial implications of caravan ownership, particularly regarding resale value and pitch fee increases.

Key Legal Issues

The legal action focuses on two primary claims:

1. Unfair Pitch Fee Increases: The claimants challenge the enforceability of contractual clauses allowing annual pitch fee increases, arguing that they may constitute unfair terms under consumer protection laws. The court will determine whether such increases are reasonable and, if not, whether refunds should be issued.
2. Failure to Disclose Depreciation Risks:  The claimants allege that the holiday parks failed to provide adequate information regarding the significant depreciation of static caravans. The case will assess whether there was a duty to inform purchasers of the likely financial losses they could incur upon resale and whether compensation is warranted for the lack of transparency.

Regulatory Context

The dispute highlights the absence of statutory regulation in the caravan sales sector, leaving consumers vulnerable to potential exploitation. The case raises broader questions about whether legislative reform is needed to impose clearer disclosure requirements and protect buyers from financial harm. The government has acknowledged concerns over unfair practices and has proposed stricter penalties for consumer law breaches.

Potential Legal Consequences

A ruling in favour of the claimants could establish important legal precedents, potentially leading to:

• Greater transparency requirements for caravan sales, particularly regarding depreciation and ongoing costs.
• Stricter regulation of pitch fee increases to ensure they are justifiable and proportionate.
• Increased consumer protections in the holiday home sector to prevent financial losses due to misleading sales practices.

This case represents a significant legal challenge to long-standing industry practices and could prompt regulatory changes aimed at safeguarding consumer rights in the holiday park sector.