Pizimolas v Pizimolas (No 2)

In Pizimolas v Pizimolas (No 2), the parties were involved in a dispute over the distribution of a deceased estate. The plaintiff sought a constructive trust and family provision from the estate, while the defendants counterclaimed for mesne profits. The trial resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims and the allowance of the defendants' counterclaim. Following the judgment, the defendants applied for costs, arguing that the plaintiff's request for costs to come out of the estate should be denied.

The key legal issue before the court was whether a letter from the plaintiff, which included an offer made in a previous mediation conference, could be admitted as evidence to support the defendants' application for costs. The plaintiff contended that the letter should be excluded under section 67C of the Evidence Act 1929, which generally prohibits the admission of evidence of communications made in connection with settlement negotiations. The court had to determine if any of the exceptions to this rule applied to allow the evidence.

The court found that none of the exceptions under section 67C(2) of the Evidence Act 1929 applied. The plaintiff did not consent to the admission of the letter, nor had the substance of the evidence been disclosed to the court or any third party. The court also noted that the communication in question was made during a settlement conference and did not include a statement that it was not to be treated as confidential. As a result, the court refused to admit the letter into evidence. Consequently, the application for costs was denied, and the plaintiff was required to bear the costs of the proceedings.