Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd (No 7)

The case of Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd (No 7) involved the plaintiff seeking to introduce correspondence between themselves and the defendant insurance company into evidence. The correspondence in question was related to an indemnity for a settlement offer and was deemed to be without prejudice. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the without prejudice communications should be admissible as they contained admissions by the defendant insurer which could assist in establishing liability.

The court was tasked with determining whether the without prejudice communications could be admitted as evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider the provisions of sections 44, 91, and 131(1) of the Act. Section 44 generally prohibits the admissibility of without prejudice communications, while section 91 allows for the admissibility of such communications in certain circumstances, such as to prove an admission by issue. Section 131(1) further clarifies that evidence of an admission by issue is not to be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.

In rendering its decision, the court held that the without prejudice communications could not be admitted as evidence. The court found that the admissions made in the communications were not relevant to the issue of liability, as they did not directly address the plaintiff's claim. The court emphasised that the without prejudice privilege is a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, and its purpose is to encourage parties to communicate freely and honestly during settlement negotiations. The court also noted that the tender of reasons for judgment did not provide a sufficient basis for admitting the without prejudice communications into evidence.

The court did not make any further orders in the case beyond its ruling on the admissibility of evidence. The plaintiff was not granted permission to introduce the without prejudice communications as evidence in the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of the without prejudice privilege in the context of settlement negotiations and highlights the limitations on the admissibility of such communications in court.