header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 February 2026 / Masood Ahmed , Sanjay Dave Singh
Issue: 8149 / Categories: Features , Costs , Procedure & practice , Mediation , ADR , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

When refusal to mediate may not bite

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
242562

What are the costs penalties when a defendant won’t mediate? Masood Ahmed & Sanjay Dave Singh consider the case law
  • This article examines the court’s treatment of a defendant’s refusal to mediate, illustrated in Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd.
  • It pays particular attention to the claimant’s costs arguments arising from that refusal.

It is trite law that a court may penalise a party in costs for refusing to engage with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or simply ignoring an invitation to engage with ADR (CPR 44.4, Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416; Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576; PGF II SA v OMFS Co 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288; Northamber Plc v Genee World Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 428). However, such adverse consequences are not automatic, as illustrated by the recent decision in Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd [2025] EWHC 503 (KB).

Following the

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
Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll