Settlement and settling disputes

Many disputes are settled. We have produced several Practice Notes and Precedents to guide you through the process of considering and conducting settlement negotiations, making different kinds of offer to settle, and drafting and interpreting settlement agreements.

For detailed guidance and Precedents on Part 36 offers, see: Part 36 offers—overview. For detailed guidance on the various forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, see: ADR and dispute resolution clauses—overview and Mediation—overview and related content.

The need to seek to settle disputes

Integral to a dispute resolution lawyer’s work is achieving the settlement of disputes. In addition to the client’s own internal drivers such as relationship preservation and avoiding wasting management time, there are civil justice system drivers, not least of which are costs pressures and penalties, working to encourage parties to at least attempt to settle their disputes.

For detailed guidance on why you should actively consider settlement prospects when advising your clients with disputes, when settlement may be possible and should certainly be considered, including the consequences of failing to engage in settlement attempts, see Practice Notes:

  1. Settling disputes—what, when and why settle?

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents