Unfortunately, I recently had to self-represent in an unfair dismissal case. (I am not a lawyer but know a bit about the law). Before the hearings began, the Respondent's lawyer called me and said he would like to make a Without Prejudice offer on behalf of his client. However, his "offer" was simply that, if I did not withdraw my claim, his client would pursue me for costs. (My dismissal was very unfair and maliciously motivated and I had strong evidence on my side so my claim wasn't vexatious. I lost the case but only because of the other side's appalling tactics. Long story.) I didn't understand what "Without Prejudice" meant at the time - it thought it was a general limitation so that anything marked Without Prejudice could not be used in court. However, I now understand that it has a specific purpose in relation to one party making a genuine offer to negotiate a settlement to reduce the cost and burden on both sides and the court. When I heard their "offer" I understood it to mean "if you continue and lose, we will chase you for costs and you will lose your house". That is, it was not a genuine offer to settle but merely a coercive threat designed to intimidate me into dropping my case. Can someone please help on whether that could ever be interpreted as a genuine offer to negotiate a settlement and, if not, whether it should not have attracted "Without Prejudice" privilege. Thanks in advance.