Letter from Clifford Chance to Andrew Malcolm, 30th March 1992

PREAMBLE. Six months after the Court of Appeal found in Andrew Malcolm's favour, ordered an enquiry to assess his damages, and urged Oxford to settle the case out of court, the university at last, on 2nd May 1991, made an offer of settlement, in the form of a payment into court. However by then the damages proceedings had already been underway for over four months and were well set for the hearing scheduled in July, which duly went ahead. During the subsequent damages appeal proceedings, Oxford renewed their offer on 30th March 1992, in the first of the letters in the linked series below. Alongside this ensuing 'without prejudice' correspondence, there therefore ran an equally voluminous (and comparably barmy) party-party correspondence concerning the pending damages appeal itself. No wonder Clifford Chancers' bill eventually reached the quoted figure of £400,000. Anyone who can be bothered to wade through all this shit is advised from time to time to pinch themselves, by way of recalling that this was a university in negotiation with an author. - A. M.

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

As you are aware, following without prejudice correspondence with you, our clients paid the sum of £XXXXX into Court pursuant to RSC Order 22 on 2 May 1991.

The damages awarded to you by Master Barratt on 11 July 1991 in the sum of £17,444.73 (excluding the sum of £502.40 representing income tax on the interest element in that damages award) did not exceed the sum paid into Court, and accordingly, Master Barratt awarded our clients their costs following the payment in, subject to the exceptions noted in his Order of 19 November 1991. He also awarded our clients certain costs incurred prior to the payment into Court.

As we have previously indicated to you, we estimate that your liability to our clients for those costs will on taxation exceed the amount of your taxed costs to date.

On 31 January 1992, Master Barratt ordered that the sum of £XXXX be paid to you out of the funds already in Court. Our clients have agreed that the balance of the money still in Court should remain here pending the outcome of the Appeal, as stated in the Fourth Affidavit of Karen Elizabeth Anderson dated 8 January 1992. We understand that it is unlikely that the Appeal will be listed for hearing prior to 20 July 1992.

In order to resolve this matter once and for all, our clients are prepared to offer you the total sum of £XXXXX (inclusive of the sum of £XXXX already paid to you) together with interest accrued thereon since 2 May 1991 by way of full and final settlement of all outstanding claims by you against our clients. This sum would cover all costs incurred by you. In addition, our clients would endeavour to procure the agreement of Sir Michael Atiyah, Dr. Black and Miss Smallwood not to enforce the Order for taxation of their costs made by Master Barratt on 9 March 1990. This offer will remain open for a period of 21 days.

If you agreed to accept this offer in full and final settlement, our clients would consent to the discontinuance of the current proceedings on the basis that each party bear its own costs, and to an application for the balance of the sum presently held in Court to be paid out to you forthwith.

You will be aware of the implications of any decision by you not to accept our clients, renewed offer. In the event of your not being awarded more than £XXXXX by the Court of Appeal, the contents of this letter, and the payment in made under RSC Order 22 on 2 May last year, will be brought to the attention of their Lordships on the question of costs.

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.