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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll