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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll