Clifford Chance to Andrew Malcolm, 19/6/92

Letter from Clifford Chance to Andrew Malcolm, 19th June 1992

CLIFFORD CHANCE, Blackfriars House, 19 New Bridge Street, London EC4V 6BY
TELEX 887847 LEGIS G FAX 071-489-0046 DX 606 LONDON
Amsterdam Brussels Frankfurt Hong Kong London Madrid Moscow New York Paris Singapore Tokyo United Arab Emirates Warsaw
Associated offices Bahrain Saudi Arabia

ref. KEA/O0452/001/MTS

Mr Andrew Malcolm
xx Southover Street
Brighton
Sussex
BN2 2UD

Without prejudice save as to costs

Dear Sir

Malcolm -v- Oxford University

We refer to your letter of 18 June 1992, and shall address your points on confidentiality in turn under the same paragraph numbering. The comments that follow are all expressly subject to our clients' instructions:-

1. Our clients wish to preserve the confidentiality of the terms of any settlement (and each of those terms) rather than the fact of settlement.

Because you did not accept the payment into court in accordance with the provision of Order 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the payment into court is not in any way material to the settlement (save insofar as it provides a convenient source of funds).

2. Our clients do not intend to increase the sum offered as an inducement to you to keep the terms of any settlement confidential. If you are not prepared to agree to an appropriate undertaking there can be no settlement.

3. We have no objection to your disclosing the terms of settlement to Richard White on the condition that he agrees not to disclose those terms to any other person. We are not inclined to permit disclosure to any other "legal advisor" on your side.

4. It is customary in settlement agreements of this kind to provide that terms of settlement should not be disclosed "save as required by law" and we propose that that form of words be adopted. Our clients would also accept that you should be entitled to disclose the fact of receipt of funds to your accountant and bankers.

5. The terms of the proposed settlement have been discussed only among our principals, Sir Roger Elliott and Mr. Ivon Asquith and the Secretary to the University. Our clients would not require you to provide a list of those to whom you have already made disclosure.

6. Our clients agree that any confidentiality undertakings should be reciprocal. Provided that appropriate undertakings are given, our clients will have no need to make a statement or otherwise refer publicly to your work.

7. We note that you would be prepared to undertake not to issue a press release stating a settlement figure. As set out in paragraph 1 above, our clients would not object to disclosure of the fact of settlement provided that such disclosure was not solicited by you.

8. Our clients expect that confidentiality undertakings, given reciprocally, would be of unlimited duration, as is the usual practice.

We confirm that your payment-out schedule was not dispatched to any other party.

We are prepared to consider your proposals for the wording of an appropriate undertaking.

Please note, however, that we hope to brief Harvey McGregor Q.C. to commence preparations for the appeal at the end of next week with a view to lodging a Skeleton Argument by 3 July 1992. You will be aware of the implications in costs of our delivery of a brief to Leading Counsel.

Yours faithfully

Clifford Chance

A list of the names of the partners and their professional qualifications is open to inspection at the above office. The partners are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers regulated by The Law Society under the Financial Services Act 1986

Click for the next item in this correspondence or for the correspondence index.

Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index, or to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index.

Go to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm 13/3/1990, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment, to the Damages assessment, to the Settlement agreement.

Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index, to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index, to the blurb for Making Names, to its reviews, to The Remedy, or to the SITE INDEX.