0370 270 6000

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd v Danovo Ltd, High Court, Chancery Division, 5 December 2003

17 December 2003
The issues

Alternative Dispute Resolutions – ADR – Mediation – whether Court could Order Mediation.

The facts

This claim involved a property dispute arising from a 20-year sub-under lease. The Applicant had issued an Application for Summary Judgment. The Respondent Company issued an Application for an Order that the matter be mediated.

The decision

1. The Court had jurisdiction to direct the dispute be dealt with by means of ADR, by dint of the Court’s obligation under CPR Part 1 actively to manage cases and also to encourage the parties to use ADR.

2. It was a significant matter in this regard that the parties occupied the same building and were in a long-term commercial relationship.

3. The Application for Summary Judgment would not deal with all the issues dividing the parties. Mediation would be able to deal with wider issues where litigation would not.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


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.


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