Unilever Plc v Procter & Gamble Co

Date

28 October 1999

Legislation

Civil Procedure Rules Part 51
Patents Act 1977 ss. 60, 70

Keywords

unjustifiable threats; without prejudice communications

Counsel

Geoffrey Hobbs QC, Daniel Alexander, Simon Thorley QC, Colin Birss

Solicitors:

Bird & Bird, Simmons & Simmons

Judge:

Robert Walker LJ, Simon Brown LJ, Wilson J

Court:

Court of Appeal

Reported:

[2000] FSR 344, [2000] 1 WLR 2436, [2001] 1 All ER 783

Summary:

In the context of on-going dispute as to the Claimant's alleged infringement of the Defendant's process patent, the Defendant had, during the course of a without prejudice meeting between the parties, threatened to bring proceedings in the UK. The Claimant brought proceedings for threats under s. 70 of the Patents Act 1977.

The without prejudice rule was based on the interests of public policy in encouraging the settlement of disputes by allowing them to make admissions without compromising their position should negotiations break down.

Decision

The Court held that the circumstances of the meeting, which was held between skilled professionals, with a view to settling a number of issues between the parties, were such that each side was entitled to speak freely, and it was therefore covered by the public policy rationale for the without prejudice rule. There was no exception to this rule for cases where a threat was pleaded, and so it would be an abuse of process to allow anything said at that meeting to found an action for unjustified threats.