Generally, where statements, whether written or verbal, are made in a genuine attempt to reach a settlement to an existing dispute, the without prejudice rule prevents their admission in any subsequent litigation. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this rule and, in the case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Limited, the High Court has extended those exceptions. Oceanbulk and TMT had entered into a settlement agreement, which subsequently became the subject of litigation. TMT sought to rely on the without prejudice exchanges that had led to the completion of the agreement, arguing that they were relevant to its proper interpretation. Oceanbulk disagreed. The High Court upheld TMT's request and held that evidence of the without prejudice exchanges was admissible to the extent that it would have been admissible had the exchanges not been without prejudice. The court further held that there was no cogent, public policy or other reason that the without prejudice exchanges should be admissible for the purposes of identifying terms but inadmissible to assist in the interpretation of those terms. Parties in negotiation are well advised to take note of the possibility that their exchanges may now be admissible in the event of a dispute surrounding interpretation at a later stage.