0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Corenso (UK) Limited v The Burnden Group Plc, High Court, 1 July 2003

28 August 2003
The issues

ADR – Mediation – Costs – Failure to Mediate.

The facts

This was a commercial/contract case. After proceedings were commenced, letters passed between the parties discussing mediation and making attempts to negotiate. A Part 36 Offer was made by the Defendant in the sum of £64,000.00. That offer was improved shortly before Trial to £90,000.00. The Claimant sought to accept those offers. There were however issues on costs. The Claimant asked for its costs. The Defendant argued that the Claimant was not entitled to its costs and should pay part of its own costs since the Claimant had failed to respond to offers to mediate.

The decision

1. Failure to engage in ADR may have adverse costs consequences for a successful party.

2. A party may justifiably refuse to consider mediation if it takes the view that there are other forms of ADR.

3. This was a case where the parties had considered mediation. The Claimants had indicated that they were not convinced that mediation was the right forum, although they had never provided details of why they did not think it was the right forum.

4. Throughout, the parties continued to negotiate and it was clear that the parties were prepared to attempt to resolve the matter without going to Court. Negotiation or attempts to use an honest broker, might in some cases be as appropriate a form of ADR as mediation. So long as parties are showing a genuine and constructive willingness to resolve the issues between them, a party will not be automatically penalised because that party had not gone along with the particular form of ADR proposed by the other side.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up