Evans v Trebuchet Design Ltd & Anor

A concluded settlement prevents a party from pursuing later proceedings arising from the same complaint. The rule against successive actions cannot be evaded by assigning the relevant rights to a new claimant or by recasting the complaint through additional causes of action that could have been raised earlier. A later draft agreement does not vary or supplement an existing settlement unless its terms are agreed. In determining whether a settlement has been reached, the court may inspect without-prejudice communications where the purpose is to establish whether the dispute was concluded; the without-prejudice policy no longer applies if a binding settlement resulted. In the small claims track, costs beyond recoverable court costs require unreasonable conduct, which must be assessed fairly in the circumstances.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning alleged copyright and database-right infringement in yachting guides, together with an alleged breach of contract. An earlier claim had been issued by a partnership of which the claimant was a partner, but the claim form was not served and no particulars were delivered.

The defendants had offered £3,000 in full and final settlement. The claimant accepted that offer by email, but later argued that no settlement existed because the sum had not been paid and a subsequent formal settlement agreement had not been signed. The central issues were whether the August 2019 communications created a binding settlement, whether the present claim was barred by that settlement and the rule in Henderson v Henderson, and whether the claimant had acted unreasonably for small-claims costs purposes.

1. Settlement concluded. The defendants made an offer to settle on 23 August 2019, which the claimant accepted on 30 August 2019. The agreement was not made subject to contract. It therefore formed a binding settlement for payment of £3,000.
2. Without-prejudice correspondence. The court was entitled to consider the correspondence to determine whether the dispute had been settled. The public policy supporting the without-prejudice rule ceased to apply for that purpose if a binding agreement had been reached, following Rush & Tompkins v GLC [1989] AC 1280.
3. Later draft agreement. The October 2019 draft sought to amend or supplement the August settlement, including by adding confidentiality terms. It was never agreed. The claimant was therefore not bound by those terms, but the earlier settlement remained effective.
4. Effect of settlement and abuse of process. The claimant could not avoid the settlement or the rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 by assigning the alleged rights to himself and commencing a new action. Nor could he improve his position by advancing breach of database right and contract claims which could have been raised in the earlier proceedings. The current complaint had been settled and the claim was struck out.
5. Costs. Although the claim should not have been brought, the defendants’ later formal settlement documents had caused confusion, and the claimant’s refusal of the £10,000 offer was not unreasonable because it included confidentiality terms. The evidence concerning the claimant’s conduct at the defendants’ premises could not be resolved at that stage. The usual small-claims costs rule therefore applied. The defendants were entitled to their court costs only.