Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who



View a printer friendly version of this page.
AB v British Coal Corporation [2008] ADR.L.R. 01/15
Time bar for mediation - applicable even if no other form of redress available. Commercial Court. 15th January 2008
by Mr Justice Mitting. Crown Copyright

Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd [2008] ADR.L.R. 07/31
Costs : exaggerated claim : “I should add some general words about Part 44.3(5)(d) \"whether a party … has exaggerated his claim\". The effect of exaggerating a claim may be to prevent parties having realistic discussions at an early stage to resolve a dispute or prevent a successful mediation. In such cases the result of the exaggeration may be to prevent a settlement of the dispute at an early stage. Similarly, if a case is not merely exaggerated but is put on a wholly unsustainable basis, it may prevent an early settlement. It may also prevent a defendant from being able to assess realistically the value of the Claimant\'s case and make an appropriate Part 36 offer. This will be particularly the case when only the Claimant is able in the first instance to evaluate its own losses. In appropriate cases the Defendant should not be left at such a disadvantage. The situation may, of course, be different if the Defendant is in a position at an early stage fully to evaluate the Claimant\'s case.” TCC 31st July 2008
by HHJ Toulmin CMQ QC: Crown Copyright

Cumbria Waste Management Ltd v Baines Wilson (A Firm) [2008] ADJ.L.R. 04/16
Privilege : Disclosure. \"Whether the defendant is entitled to disclosure of documents arising out of or in connection with two mediations between the claimants and the DEFRA and which are not subject to legal professional privilege. DEFRA are not a party to these proceedings but have been invited to make representations pursuant to CPR 31.19(6)(b). They resist the making of an order for disclosure. The claimants do not resist the application. They take a neutral stance.\" QBD. 16th April 2008.
by HHJ Frances Kirkham : Crown Copyright

Farm Assist Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs [2008] ADR.LR. 12/12
Economic Duress : Interim application for disclosures. Was the advice given to FAL by its solicitors before and during the mediation, which might throw some light on FALs state of mind, admissible and subject to disclosure? Held : No - subject to Legal Privilege. Case on-going. TCC. 12th December 2008
by Mr Justice Ramsey. Crown Copyright

Gower Chemicals Group Litigation v Gower Chemicals Ltd [2008] ADR.L.R. 04/17
Series of group mediations settlements save as to costs : Para. 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction. Costs litigation - party to elect whether to disclose expert report or rely on other documents. Whether order fair. QBD. 17th April 2008.
by Mr Justice Davis: Crown Copyright

James Carleton Seventh Earl of Malmesbury v Strutt & Parker (a partnership) [2008] ADR.L.R. 03/18
Waiver of mediation privilege : costs of unreasonable behaviour of party submitting dispute to mediation of maintaining an unreasonable demand which led to failure of negotiations where sum offered by respondent ulimately not beaten in court. 18th March 2008
by Mr Justice Jack : Crown Copyright

James Carleton Seventh Earl of Malmesbury v Strutt & Parker (a partnership) [2008] ADR.L.R. 03/18
Costs - trial post failed mediation. Claimant recovered less than 10% of initial demand. Should costs follow event and / or should unreasonable stance in mediation be taken into account in allocating / determining costs. Total costs incurred by both parties almost 3 times the amount recovered. QBD. 18th March 2008
by Mr Justice Jack : Crown Copyright

Julie Strachey v Fraser Thomas Ramage [2008] ADR.L.R. 07/16
Refusal to mediate following strong advice from trial judge during case management : Costs penalty. CA. 16th July 2008.
by Sedley LJ; Rimer LJ; Sir Paul Kennedy. Crown Copyright

Lobster Group Ltd v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Ltd [2008] ADR.L.R. 03/06
Costs of failed mediation : recovery at trial : Whether and or in what circumstances costs of a failed mediation might be subsequently be recovered along with other costs by successful party to a trial. TCC. 6th March 2008.
by Mr Justice Coulson: Crown Copyright

Newall v Lewis [2008] ADR.L.R. 04/30
Benefit of partial settlement by beneficiaries through mediation : Removal of trustees. Costs incurred by trustees in resisting removal, with regard to the impact mediation had on limiting the scope of the trial. Chancery. 30th April 2008.
by Mr Justice Briggs : Crown Copyright

Nicholson v Knox Ukiwa & Co (a firm) [2008] ADR.L.R. 06/02
Advisor’s liability for terms of settlement. Dispute as to whether client had consented to his advisor concluding a mediated settlement exclusive of costs and or interest. Client protested at the terms of a subsequent Tomlin Order which was stated to be exclusive of costs and interest, leading to this action to recover costs and interest from the advisor. Claim rejected on the findings of fact of the court – viz at the time he knew it was exclusive. QB. 2nd June 2008
by Mr. Justice Saunders : Crown Copyright

Nigel Witham Ltd v Smith (No. 2) [2008] ADR.L.R. 01/04
Failure to mediate : Costs : No penalty if there was no value in mediating. TCC. 4th January 2008
by His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC: Crown Copyright

Whapples, R (on the application of) v Birmingham East & North Primary Care Trust [2008] ADR.L.R. 04/07
Public Law : Judicial review : whether a duty to mediate pre-litigation : Application for permission to claim judicial review on the ground that the defendant public body acted unreasonably in not agreeing to mediation of the dispute between the parties refused; On appeal : Whilst :- it is surprising how frequently even the most intractable case produces a satisfactory outcome in mediation ... that is a million miles away from saying that it is so unreasonable of a party not to undertake mediation at a stage before litigation. That argument, in my view, simply cannot run. CA : 7th April 2008
by Ward LJ; Thomas LJ. Crown Copyright

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.

Top of page

    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.