The law

Without Prejudice vs Protected Conversation: The Difference

Somebody in an HR meeting says the words “this is a protected conversation” or “this is without prejudice”, and everyone nods. (Those are two of thirteen terms in circulation here, and only some of them have legal content.)

They are not interchangeable phrases. They are two different rules, from two different places, covering different things — and between them there is a gap that swallows a whole category of claim.

Without prejudice vs protected conversation: the difference

The short answer: without prejudice needs an existing dispute and covers any claim; a protected conversation needs no dispute but only covers ordinary unfair dismissal. Everything else follows from those two differences.

Where both apply — an existing dispute and an unfair dismissal claim — the Acas Code (paragraph 21) says the conversation stays out of evidence unless there was unambiguous impropriety, because that is the narrower of the two tests. How a protected conversation works in practice, and what counts as improper.

The older rule: without prejudice

Without prejudice is a common-law rule of evidence, not a statutory one. Its purpose is to let parties to a dispute try to settle it without every concession being quoted back at them if settlement fails.

It applies to any claim

That is its strength. It is a general rule of evidence rather than an employment one, so it is not limited to particular causes of action. If it applies, it applies to whatever you are arguing about.

But it needs a genuine existing dispute

That is its limit, and it is a hard one. The rule protects attempts to settle a dispute. If there is no dispute at the point the conversation happens, there is nothing for the rule to attach to.

Writing the words on it does not create one

Heading a letter “without prejudice” is not a spell. If the first you knew of any problem was the meeting in which settlement was raised, the label may be decorative. This gap is exactly what Parliament legislated for in 2013.

The newer rule: section 111A

Section 111A was inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and came into force on 29 July 2013. It creates a statutory confidentiality that does not need a pre-existing dispute. How a protected conversation works, and what counts as improper.

What it was built to fix

Before it, an employer who wanted to open a settlement conversation with someone they still employed had a problem: without an existing dispute there was no without-prejudice protection, so the conversation itself was evidence that they had already decided to dismiss. Section 111A lets them raise it cold.

What “pre-termination negotiations” covers

The definition in subsection (2) is broad — any offer made or discussions held, before the termination of the employment in question, with a view to it being terminated on terms agreed. Offers and discussions, not just formal ones. What narrows it is not the subject matter. It is the proceedings it protects against.

The limit almost nobody mentions

Read the first sentence again, and specifically the last six words: in any proceedings on a complaint under section 111.

What section 111 is

That is the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, and that is the whole of what s.111A protects against.

What it therefore does not cover

Why that is the gap

Put the two rules together and the hole is obvious. Section 111A needs no dispute but only covers unfair dismissal. Without prejudice covers everything but needs a dispute. So a discrimination claim, raised for the first time in a settlement conversation with no prior grievance, may be protected by neither.

That is not a technicality — it changes the shape of the negotiation. An employer who raised settlement out of nowhere with someone who has a live discrimination issue may have had a fully admissible conversation, including whatever they said about why they wanted that person gone. More on what else changes when a discrimination claim is in play.

And the limit that has teeth

Even within unfair dismissal, the protection is not absolute.

“Connected with” is doing a lot of work

The subsection reaches anything connected with improper behaviour, not only the improper act itself. A single episode of pressure can therefore pull a wider set of exchanges into evidence.

The remedy is discretionary, not binary

Note also that subsection (1) then applies “only to the extent that the tribunal considers just”. The tribunal admits as much as it thinks appropriate, which could be the entire conversation. It is not a switch that flips to “unprotected”; it is a dial.

What counts as improper

The statute does not define it exhaustively. The Acas Code gives examples, and not giving a reasonable amount of time to consider an offer is among them — which is why the ten-day recommendation matters more than its status as guidance suggests. Others in the same family: telling someone the outcome is already decided before a process has run, or intimidation in the meeting itself.

Putting them together

Neither of them protects the agreement

Both rules are about what can be said in evidence. Neither has anything to do with whether the settlement agreement itself works. That is a separate question with a separate answer — the six conditions in ERA 1996 s.203(3), all of which have to be met for the waiver of your tribunal rights to be valid.

A conversation can be perfectly protected and produce an agreement that does not bind you. A conversation can be fully admissible and produce an agreement that binds you completely. What the document actually has to contain.

What to do with this

If it is ordinary unfair dismissal and you were given reasonable time

The conversation is protected and both sides can speak freely. That is the system working as designed, and it is usually to your advantage too — you can say what you want without it appearing in a bundle later.

If discrimination or whistleblowing is involved

Take advice before assuming the conversation was confidential. It may not have been, in either direction. And note that the time limits differ as well: the Equality Act allows a tribunal to extend where it thinks it just and equitable, a wider discretion than the not reasonably practicable test that applies to unfair dismissal.

If you were pressured

Record it in writing at the time, factually and without accusation. A short email saying “you told me on Tuesday that I would be dismissed regardless of the outcome” is not a threat — it is a note of what was said, and it is worth considerably more later than a recollection.

If you are thinking of resigning

Do not, yet. Resigning is what creates a constructive dismissal claim and also the moment you stop holding anything back. Why the negotiation is almost always stronger before you go.

One more thing they cannot gag

Separately from all of the above, a confidentiality clause in the agreement itself cannot reach a protected disclosure.

That operates whether or not the draft acknowledges it. Asking for an express carve-out is still worth doing, because the answer tells you how much attention the document has had. What else is worth asking to have excluded.

All posts · Calculator · Find a solicitor