header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 August 2007 / Chloe Carswell
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Mediation
printer mail-detail

Inside mediation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

When will courts waive the without prejudice rule for mediation? Chloe Carswell reports

The courts have wholeheartedly embraced mediation since it was enshrined in the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. Case law including Dunnett v Railtrack plc (in railway administration) [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 2 All ER 850 and Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358, [2005] All ER (D) 62 (Apr) demonstrates that the courts will not hesitate to apply costs sanctions to parties who unreasonably refuse to mediate.

The benefits of mediation are clear. It is a flexible process with a neutral third party who tries to facilitate a settlement of the dispute. It is a (relatively) cheap and swift method of dispute resolution which allows for creative solutions not otherwise available through the courts, and which allows for quasi-direct negotiation between parties. Perhaps most importantly, it is confidential, without prejudice and non-binding—unless and until there is a signed settlement agreement.

A FORM OF PRIVILEGE

The “without prejudice” rule exists to encourage parties to reach a settlement of a dispute without fear

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll