Legal Articles

Risks in refusing to mediate

Home / Knowledge base / Risks in refusing to mediate

Posted by Stuart Thwaites on 09 March 2016

Stuart Thwaites - Building and Construction Lawyer
Stuart Thwaites Legal Director

Mediation is a form of “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) involving a third party neutral mediator seeking to resolve the dispute between parties on a face to face basis, normally lasting one day.

The procedure involves the parties having a round table meeting initially with the mediator after which they break out into their separate rooms. The mediator then shuttles between the parties to try and get an agreement with which all parties can live.

Costs sanctions imposed for refusal to mediate

There have been quite a number of court cases where one of the parties has refused an offer to mediate resulting in the court imposing a cost sanction on them. In each case it was the successful party which refused to mediate and ended up having their awards reduced by the court.

More recently (October 2015), the courts have held that the costs sanction which can apply where a party unreasonably refuses to mediate can also apply where the party refusing to mediate ends up being the losing party in the litigation. 

Reid v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

The case in question was a medical negligence case, but the principles apply equally to all litigation including construction disputes.

In the Reid case, the Defendant NHS Trust was found unreasonably to have refused the Claimant’s proposal to mediate.  The Trust subsequently lost the Court case. When it came to deciding who should pay what costs, the Court imposed a costs sanction on the Trust for what was held to be their unreasonable refusal to mediate.  In this case, the defendant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis from the date on which it had failed to respond to the claimant’s offer to mediate, rather than the whole proceedings. However, in another recent medical negligence case (Bristow v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust), the losing defendant was ordered to pay the costs for the entire proceedings.

Court disapproval of defendant’s conduct

The following extract from the Reid judgment serves as a warning to parties of the risks of refusing an offer to mediate, “If the party unwilling to mediate is the losing party, the normal sanction is an order to pay the winner’s costs on the indemnity basis, and that means that they will have to pay their opponent’s cost, even if those costs are not proportionate to what was at stake.  This penalty is imposed because a court wants to show its disapproval of their conduct”.

In construction disputes it is not unusual for relations between the parties to be strained, to put it mildly.  Nevertheless whilst it may be tempting to reject a proposal to mediate, it is only likely to be in rare circumstances that a Court will find that it was reasonable to refuse an offer to mediate. Therefore our general advice is to agree to mediation if it is proposed, no matter how difficult relations are between the parties.

About the author

Stuart Thwaites

Legal Director

Stuart specialises in construction and engineering work in relation to resolving disputes and in the drafting and negotiation of contractual documentation.

Stuart Thwaites

Stuart specialises in construction and engineering work in relation to resolving disputes and in the drafting and negotiation of contractual documentation.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512