In law, the phrase without prejudice means that a claim, lawsuit, or proceeding has been brought to a temporary end but that no legal rights or privileges have been determined, waived, or lost by the result. For example, if a party brings a lawsuit in small claims court but discovers that the claim is over the amount for that court to have jurisdiction, the lawsuit can be dismissed "without prejudice". This means that the dismissal is no bar to bringing a new lawsuit in a court that does have jurisdiction.
By contrast with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost. To continue the same example, if instead the court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiff did not appear for the trial, the court would dismiss the case "with prejudice". That dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over. However, this does not prevent an appeal or a trial de novo if ordered by a higher court.
A rigorous investigation of the merits of an allegation of prejudice may lead a court to the conclusion that, by the employment of creative terms, the allegation of prejudice is not as serious as they appear.
A party who cries prejudice when it is not the type of prejudice that should prevent the adjudication of a claim or defence on its substantive merits is akin to a hockey player or soccer player who fakes a trip to draw a penalty to the other side.
The specific allegation of prejudice should be detailed in sufficient particularity in evidence to allow the opposing party to respond to the allegation and to allow the court to take a hard took at the merits of the allegation.
Feeds |
Contact