header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CIVIL LITIGATION

Aird v Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1866, [2006] All ER (D) 358 (Dec)

(i) When a joint experts’ statement is ordered under CPR 35.12(3), the experts are obliged to produce it and are in breach of their duty to the court if they do not. Such a statement is for use in the proceedings, and so is not protected by privilege. However, it is not an admission by the parties, nor can it be characterised as an admission by the experts, and so the parties are not bound by it.
(ii) The court cannot order the parties to mediate. However:

“The court can and does order a stay of proceedings for mediation, almost always when all parties have indicated that they are willing to try. The court may also perhaps, on occasions, consider making an adverse costs order against a party who is shown to have unreasonably refused to participate in mediation, although I personally regard that as a power to be exercised with caution.

Since the court cannot order the parties to participate in mediation, neither can the court make orders stipulating the details of how the parties should conduct a mediation. The most the court can do is to encourage” (per Lord Justice May at para 6).

Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll