Inter Partes is a Latin phrase which means literally "between the parties". Nowadays judges and lawyers tend to use Latin as little as possible but sometimes Latin phrases stay in common use because they are understood as signifying something more precise than their literal meaning - something for which there is no snappy English equivalent.
Once litigation is commenced there will be some written communications (emails/letters) between the parties as the litigation proceeds. The parties will also send documents to each other, such as statements of case and witness statements, but anything in writing which is a communication (rather than a document) is called inter partes correspondence. Strictly speaking inter partes correspondence is any correspondence between the parties (or their solicitors if solicitors are appointed) once the current legal proceedings are intimated, so it covers letters before action and other pre-action correspondence in the run-up to the formal start of legal proceedings.
Of course often the parties will have corresponded in the months and years leading up to the point where legal proceedings are intimated, and some of that correspondence may be evidence in the case but inter partes is a phrase used in a restrictive sense to mean just the correspondence between the parties during, and about, the legal process itself, not any previous correspondence there may have been between the parties.
Sometimes the phrase inter-solicitor correspondence is used to emphasise that it is just the correspondence between the parties during, and about, the legal process itself that is being referred to. This phrase has the advantage that it is in English but the disadvantage is that the parties may not have solicitors and so this alternative phrase may not always be appropriate.
Inter-partes correspondence may be copied to the tribunal and correspondence addressed to the tribunal from a party will always be copied to the other party. Whilst the latter is not strictly inter-partes correspondence in practice it is dealt with in the same way.
An example of inter-partes correspondence would be emails between the parties seeking to agree what directions to ask the tribunal for - the date by which the parties must exchange witness statements, for example, or how many days should be allocated for the final hearing. Another example would be correspondence arranging a date and time for the expert witness engaged by one party to inspect land, or other property, owned by the other party.
Although the expert witness will be giving evidence, the correspondence arranging a date and time for the expert's visit is not itself relevant evidence - it doesn't shed any light on the disputed issues in the case. Likewise the result of the parties correspondence trying to agree directions will either be that they agree and the tribunal makes those directions or else they can't agree and the tribunal makes a decision, or the tribunal might impose its own view even though the parties are agreed. In any event the tribunal will have made a binding order giving directions and it is only that order which may need to be included in the Bundle - not the parties' previous correspondence leading up to it (in fact even the order may not be needed in the Bundle if it does not concern the final hearing). Most inter-partes correspondence is of this nature - it is, one way or another, about administrative matters ultimately directed at, in the widest sense, preparing for the final hearing, but the item of inter-partes correspondence itself won't be evidence at the final hearing because it does not itself help to prove anything in dispute.
But, as with all general rules, there are occasionally exceptions. Suppose that by the time an expert inspects property it has unexpectedly been repaired so that the expert is not able to report fully on the damage (which is the subject of the legal case). Suppose that it was repaired shortly before the expert's visit and that the correspondence trying to arrange a date and time for the expert's visit extends over several months and appears to show that the party with the expert is making all the running in trying to arrange a date and the other party is tardy in replying and/or keeps cancelling appointments. In this case it might seem that the property owner might have had something to hide - particularly as the allegedly damaged property had already been repaired at the time when the inspection of it eventually took place - and the barrister representing the party with the expert might want to cross-examine along these lines at the final hearing, so in this exceptional case this particular chain of inter partes correspondence would be relevant evidence which is would be useful to have in the Bundle.
In inter partes correspondence, particularly in pre-action correspondence, a party may set out facts which they allege happened in the past and what, they say, are the legal consequences. And the other party may in correspondence dispute some or all of those alleged facts or, at least, dispute what the legal consequences are. Once legal proceedings have commenced each party will serve a "statements of case" (drafted by their barrister) which sets out what they allege at a high level, and further detail will later be supplied when witness statements are exchanged prior to the final hearing. The pre-action correspondence then generally plays no part in the final hearing because it provides no extra evidence. If a party has said in pre-action correspondence that they remember such-and-such happening 5 years ago they will presumably also say that in their witness statement. They will be cross-examined at the final hearing (trial) on what they say in their witness statement and the judge will form a view as to the reliability of their evidence. The fact that they said the same thing in inter partes correspondence shortly before proceedings commenced, or more recently, adds no additional weight - that is what you would expect. If they had said the same thing in correspondence years ago at around the time of the events in question that might add some additional weight, but saying something in inter-partes correspondence adds no extra weight to the same thing said in the witness statement.
So inter partes correspondence making assertions about facts is generally not evidence which it will be useful to rely on at the final hearing to help to prove a party's case and so does not need to be in the Bundle for the final hearing. However in the unlikely event that in inter partes correspondence a party actually says something different from what that party then says in its statement of case, or in its witness statement, that would potentially be relevant evidence because it casts doubt on that party's recollection. Of course if it is an obvious typo it proves nothing but if there is a significant difference about something which matters - or even a significant difference about something which doesn't matter but which may indicate unreliable memory about the events in question in general - then that item of inter partes correspondence would be relevant evidence.
Other examples where items of inter partes correspondence may, exceptionally, be relevant evidence which it might be useful to have in the Bundle for the final hearing include a letter or email which is not just about past events but has some current significance such as:
A letter or email which communicates a legal decision the writer is making - for example saying that they are exercising an option which they have under a contract, or giving notice to quit, "rejecting" goods delivered which do not conform with the contract of sale, severing a joint tenancy, or terminating a contract;
A letter or email offering to do something - e.g. offering to do something practical to ameliorate a problem. Offers to settle the case are normally "without prejudice" (or "without prejudice except as to costs") and as privileged documents can't normally be used as evidence during the final hearing but an offer to do something to ameliorate an ongoing problem - not as a settlement but just as a practical gesture - such as offering to cut a neighbour's hedge for them, pending the outcome of the case, in a case where a disputed right of way means that the neighbour cannot easily cut the far side of their hedge - can be relevant evidence in some circumstances.
A letter or email which makes a legal admission, such as acknowledging that another party has good title to land.
If your case is about a continuing (or recurring) state of affairs and you, or your opponent, are seeking an injunction to prevent continuation or repetition in future, whether the court grants an injunction may depend partly on whether future continuation is threatened or likely and some recent inter partes correspondence may help to establish a party's intentions and help to show why an injunction is needed or, alternatively, why it is unnecessary.
In fairness to the parties and in order to allow them to prepare for, and avoid them being unfairly taken by surprise at, the final hearing, the tribunal normally sets deadlines by which a copy of anything which is to be relied on at the final hearing has to be sent to the other party. Typically there will be a general "disclosure" deadline and there may be later deadlines for specific classes of documents such as expert reports and witness statements. If an item of inter-partes correspondence was sent after the normal deadline the tribunal might nevertheless sometimes give permission for it to be included in the Final Hearing Bundle if it is relevant evidence.
If the side which has sent the correspondence wishes to rely on it at the final hearing the tribunal might well refuse permission particularly if it appears that they are seeking to circumvent the rules by, for example, introducing late evidence which ought to have been in their witness statement.
But if a party wishes to rely on correspondence which the other side has sent late then the tribunal might well give permission to include it in the Bundle.
To a certain extent the tribunal's decision to grant or withhold permission depend how significant the correspondence is as evidence. For example:
the fact that a party has written agreeing not to obstruct a way in future may have little relevance if the claim is only for monetary compensation for loss already caused by an admitted obstruction which predates the claim, but it will be more relevant if the claim is for an injunction to restrain future acts of obstruction.
if, in recent correspondence, a party has said something about past events which contradicts what they say about those events in their witness statement then that is equally relevant to their credibility as a witness whether the letter was written just before or just after the deadline.
After the judge at the final hearing has heard all the witness evidence, and the legal arguments of both side's barristers, the judge will decide which party has won. Often the judge will take time over the following days to consider the matter and write a reasoned Decision (judgment) which states which party wins and which is then sent to the parties. Each party can then decide whether they wish to ask the tribunal for an order that the other side should pay some or all of their legal costs and can, at that stage, provide to the tribunal and to the other party any extra documents not in the Bundle which are relevant to costs. These extra documents can include "without prejudice except as to costs" settlement offers which they made in the past and which were not accepted by the other party. A party might also wish to rely on some other inter-partes correspondence such as letters/emails about arranging an inspection of property by an expert (e.g. to show that the other side has unnecessarily increased costs by repeatedly cancelling appointments at the last minute).
If the judge decides to take a short break and then announce their decision at the end of the final hearing itself then again the parties might be given some days to decide whether they wish to apply for an order for costs and what extra documents they wish to rely on when doing so.
However in certain kinds of cases in certain courts there may be the possibility of the judge announcing their decision at the end of the final hearing and then requiring any party which wishes to apply for an order for costs to do so there and then or else the lose the opportunity to apply for costs. In these kinds of cases parties will typically have an extra Bundle - a Costs Bundle - containing documents relevant only to costs (including any relevant "without prejudice except as to costs" settlement offers) copies of which can then be provided, there and then when applying for costs. It is essential that "without prejudice except as to costs" documents are provided in an extra Bundle - not in the main Bundle - but other documents relevant to costs could have been included in the main Bundle. Generally a court will not want documents relevant only to costs to be referred to during the hearing so that they do not need to be in the main Bundle but there could be some cases where documents relevant both to the matters in dispute, and to the question of who ought to pay what legal costs, are in the main Bundle and it then may make sense to also include in the main Bundle a few documents relevant only to costs which are contemporaneous with, or otherwise connected with, documents relevant to matters in dispute.
This information page is designed to be used only by clients of John Antell who have entered into an agreement for the provision of legal services. The information in it is necessarily of a general nature and will not be applicable to every case: it is intended to be used only in conjunction with more specific advice to the individual client about the individual case. This information page should not be used by, or relied on, by anyone else.
This page was lasted updated in March 2025. Disclaimer