The Concepts of “Without Prejudice” Snd “Confidentiality” Under Turkish and English Law
Alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarını doğrudan düzenleyen veya bu mekanizmalarla ilişkili son dönemde çıkarılmış olan kanunların da etkisiyle Türkiye’de alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarının kullanımında bir artış gözlenmektedir. Bu durum, alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarının detaylı şekilde incelenmesi gerekliliğini yaratmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu makalenin amacı, gizlilik (confidentiality) ve belgelerin yargılamada kullanılamaması (without prejudice) kavramlarının Türk ve İngiliz hukuklarında karşılaştırılarak, bu iki hukuk sistemindeki benzerliklerin ve farklılıkların saptanmasıdır. Bu saptama, daha sonra Türk ve İngiliz hukuk sistemlerinde bu konuların güçlü ve zayıf yönlerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılacaktır. Böylece yorum ve önerilerle, alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarının geliştirilmesi ve daha etkin bir şekilde kullanılması için yönlendirmelerde bulunulabilecektir.
Gizlilik (confidentiality), belgelerin yargılamada kullanılamaması (without prejudice), İngiliz hukuku, alternatif uyuşmazlık çözümü, müzakere, arabuluculuk.
There is an increase in the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Turkey, due in part to recent legislation enacted which directly concerns or relates to such mechanisms. A detailed examination of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is therefore warranted. With this in mind, this article seeks to examine the concepts of “without prejudice” and “confidentiality” in Turkish and English law in order to detect similarities and differences between the two legal systems. Such detection will then be used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each legal system on the matter concerned. This will enable one to make comments and suggestions and direct the way forward to ensure that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are fully enhanced and made use of.
Confidentiality, without prejudice, English law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), negotiation, mediation.
INTRODUCTION
There has been a stark increase in the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in Turkey. The process has been accelerated particularly with the enactment of the International Arbitration Law1 and the Mediation Law2, as well as the revision of the Code of Civil Procedure (which includes a chapter on arbitration)3. This process will no doubt gain momentum with the commencement of operations of the Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC) in the coming months4. In short, this is a well-timed article which -it is hoped- will clarify certain matters for lawyers and academics engaged in the ADR process and will add to the jurisprudence.
The aim of this article is to discuss the development and significance of the concepts of “without prejudice” and “confidentiality’ in Turkish law. Considering that such concepts are new to the Turkish legal system, it is thought that a scrutiny of the meaning afforded to them under English law5 -a legal system which has set the foundations for ADR mechanisms- will prove fruitful. Consequently, this article will first analyse the position under English law and then compare the position under Turkish law, so as to ascertain similarities and differences in approach and determine what could be done to improve the legal framework in Turkey relating to ADR mechanisms. The first issue that will be dealt with in this paper will be the concept of “without prejudice” (I) followed by the concept of confidentiality (II). A conclusive remark will thereafter be made (III) to summarise the law and suggest a way forward.
I. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The fact that most legal concepts in English law are generally the result of case-law developments is also true of the principles relating to ADR mechanisms. The meaning, boundaries and exceptions to the concept “without prejudice” were laid down by courts. The term “without prejudice” refers to the rule that anything said or written between parties which are expressly marked “without prejudice” are “without prejudice to the position of the writer of the letter if the terms he proposes are not accepted”6. In short, it means that such communications are inadmissible and cannot be relied on in litigation. The case of McTaggart v McTaggart7 is authority for the proposition that communications made in the course of negotiations are privileged and cannot generally be admitted in evidence without the opposing party’s consent. The rationale behind this is to encourage disputants to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms more freely through elimination of concerns as to the ultimate damage such efforts may have if the dispute ends up in court.
