The registration of a transaction contract is mainly valid for a period of 3 years from the date of registration. They may request an extension of the validity of the registered transaction contract for up to three years at any time, at any time before the expiry of the first registration` validity period. However, the appeals against the traditional accused proceeded without any comparison. On April 8, 2019, after receiving an edited version of the transaction agreement as part of the advertising process, the Defendants tradition requested a specific advertisement and an unpublished version of the transaction agreement. In the defence of the traditional defendant, it would clearly be advantageous to see both Mr. Cuddihy`s assertions and the vongabier. In addition, in subsequent testimony, BGC noted that “an important element” of its strategy was to “get along with Mr. Cuddihy on conditions, that he would work together by providing evidence in the complaint against tradition,” which is probably the strongest outcome of the compensation trial. The content of these documents would therefore be of great importance for outstanding claims.
Arnold LJ found that this argument was wrong. The transaction agreement and the antecedent documents were considered “different communications” and the contested decision was intended to be consulted on the transaction agreement. Despite the fact that the transaction agreement added information contained in the decision documents (or by reference), it was the purpose of the settlement agreement that was relevant. The Court considered “without prejudice” the prerogative and legal privilege, as they apply to transaction agreements and their control by co-accused. In BGC Brokers LP – Ors v. Tradition UK – Ors[i] the Court of Appeal of England unanimously rejected an appeal against the injunction to disclose a settlement agreement as is. The Court found that the transaction treaty did not apply “without prejudice” or that a privilege of litigation did not apply to the transaction treaty, although it reflects confidential communications that would themselves be directly covered by one or both privileges. The Court found that the reproduction and inclusion of confidential communications as part of the transaction agreement is part of a new and separate communication that was not intended to negotiate a transaction agreement or gather evidence for litigation purposes.