Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
The implications of ignoring invitations to mediation
when engaged in costs proceedings have been further confirmed in Master Simons decision in Bristow v Princess Alexander NHS Trust & Ors.
This follows Master O’Hare’s decision in Reid v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust  EWHC B21 (Costs) which we reported last December,
which was the first instance where a losing party was penalised by their refusal to attend mediation.
The costs judiciary are sending a clear message that when a party receives an invitation to mediate in costs proceedings for detailed assessment, regardless of whether they are the unsuccessful paying party or the successful receiving party, careful
consideration should be given before refusing or ignoring the offer; where refusal is unreasonable, parties will face sanctions.
In Bristow, the Defendants argued that they did not enter into the mediation because the parties were so far apart.
Master Simons was of the view that this was an unreasonable refusal to mediate, that the case could have reached settlement through mediation and stated:
“The parties should be encouraged to enter into mediation and if one party fails to enter into a mediation and that failure is unreasonable then there should be a sanction”.
“It took three months for them [the Defendants] to reject and they gave no good reason other than the fact that the case had already been set down for a detailed assessment”.
“I think that the correct sanction is that the claimant should receive their costs on an indemnity basis on their 80 per cent costs as a sanction for the defendants’ failing to engage in mediation”.
Hannah Rawlins, Registrar of Costs ADR gave the following guidance to practitioners:
“It is clear that mediation is becoming increasingly important in costs proceedings and parties should seriously consider if they refuse to mediate, whether that is conduct that is reasonable. To date, we have not seen a “reasonable refusal”
in the the courts in costs proceedings and it is in the interests of all parties to consider carefully how the courts will react should a reasonable offer to mediate be refused. The judgement from Master O’Hare previously and now Master Simons
provides a clear direction that mediation is being endorsed and that if invitations to mediate are addressed late, ignored, or refused altogether, sanctions will be imposed by the court on the offending party”.
What are your experiences? Have you encountered any indication of a "reasonable refusal"?
0330 161 1234