header-logo header-logo

24 October 2013
Issue: 7582 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Costs sanctions for silence on mediation

Long-awaited Court of Appeal ruling on costs

Parties who fail to reply to an invitation to mediate may face costs sanctions regardless of whether they would have accepted or not, the Court of Appeal has ruled in a long-awaited ruling on costs.

PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, involved three dilapidations claims brought by the landlord, PGF, against the tenant, OMFS. Several Pt 36 offers were made by both parties during the course of proceedings. PGF invited OMFS to mediate on two separate occasions but were met with silence.

The case settled one day before trial, PGF accepting a Pt 36 offer made nine months earlier.

PGF contended that OMFS should not be given the benefit of the usual costs protection because of their lack of response to the offer to mediate. PGF further argued that silence in response to an invitation to mediate was in itself unreasonable, regardless of whether there were grounds to refuse.

Exercising discretion, the Recorder agreed and refused OMFS costs for the “relevant period” of 21 days from when the offer was made. OMFS appealed.

Dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Briggs said: “The time has now come for this court firmly to endorse the advice given in Chapter 11.56 of the ADR Handbook, that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable…”.  

Later in the judgment, he said: “There are in my view sound practical and policy reasons for this modest extension to the principles and guidelines set out in the Halsey case….”

In Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, the Court of Appeal set out guidelines for deciding whether a refusal to participate in ADR can be shown to be unreasonable.

Kate Andrews, partner at Browne Jacobson, who acted for PGF, says: “This case is of importance to all who embark on litigation.  

“The case demonstrates a clear and unequivocal endorsement by the Court of Appeal as to the value of ADR, (including but not limited to mediation) and highlights the fact that a party who refuses to engage in the process of ADR can, and will, face costs sanctions.”

Issue: 7582 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft strengthens Scottish real estate capabilitywith partner appointment

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints Brendan Ryan as partner in Public Law Projects team

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers welcomes five new barristers

NEWS
A time-restricted bank tax, a ‘roadmap to fiscal devolution’, extension to parental leave, entrepreneur’s relief and a giveaway on energy bills for households are the headlines in Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey’s 2026 Autumn Budget
A Court of Appeal judge has lamented the ‘very concerning’ state of the law on employee inventor compensation after a chemist’s case took five-and-a-half years to reach court, eventually being listed for a 37-day trial next year
The Law Society has emphasised that responsibility remains human, in a practice note on artificial intelligence (AI)
Respect orders, which enable police, councils, housing associations, transport networks and other authorities to take enforcement action against anti-social behaviour, have come into force across England and Wales
The Land Registry has launched two consultations aimed at making its information more publicly accessible, ‘Restructuring HM Land Registry fees’, and ‘Future of access to HM Land Registry information’
back-to-top-scroll