Saying "No" to mediation - a mistake?

Mediation is an alternative method of resolving disputes, where the parties involved agree to appoint a third party, whose role is to assist them in coming to a settlement.

 

While mediation is not compulsory, the Court have encouraged the use of the same, particularly if the costs involved are considerably less than taking a matter all the way through the Court system. In order to encourage the parties to mediate, they have made it quite clear that if a party refuses to mediate, and they do not have a good reason to do so, then even if they succeed in the case, at trial, then they will not be entitled to recover the costs either in part or in full. In a recent case, where one party refused to mediate for “commercial reasons”, although those reasons were never stated. The Court, when refusing to make a costs order in that case, gave some guidance as to what factors would influence their decision either way namely:

 

• The party refusing mediation must have strong grounds.

 

• Strong grounds do not include that the matter cannot be easily mediated.

• That it can be a good ground to refuse to mediate if you believe you have a strong case. However, if you feel that your case is strong enough, then you would normally be expected to apply to the Court for an early determination of the matter by way of Summary Judgment Application. If you don’t then the Court will probably take the view that you obviously didn’t believe the case was as strong as you say.

 

• It is reasonable to refuse to mediate if sensible and realistic offers have already been made and have been rejected.

 

• It is not good grounds to allege that the parties are so far apart that mediation will not be effective. The whole point of mediation is to bring parties closer together.

 

• Refusing to mediate because of the additional costs that will be incurred is also not good grounds, as the costs of mediation are often less than allowing a matter to go to a fully contested trial.

 

• The burden of showing that the refusal was reasonable lies on the party refusing to mediate.

• If mediation is attempted but fails then no criticism can be raised by the parties because the whole process is confidential.

 

In the circumstances, it would only be in exceptional cases that mediation would not be appropriate. The consequences of refusing to do so can result in you succeeding in your claim but being unable to recover your costs either in part or in full.

New court decision on remedies for right to light infringement

Rights to light and air are not something that the planning process generally takes into account - at least not in the way that those rights are protected in title deeds to property.  It's perfectly possible for a planning authority to grant planning permission only for the property owner not to be able to carry out those works because he finds out that his proposed building works would interfere with the existing light and air to the neighbouring property.

Until now, though, it has always been assumed (especially in relation to commercial property - the courts having always taken a slightly different tack with residential property) that if the neighbour didn't complain about the infringement of his rights before the building work was carried out, his only remedy was to damages for loss of amenity - the view of the courts being that it was unfair to make someone take down a building that was already completed.

However, a recent High Court decision seems to have turned that on its head!

The court awarded an injunction against a developer whose development interfered with the rights of light to a neighbouring commercial property, despite the development having been completed.

In the past, developers may have assumed that they could simply buy rights of light out from the neighbouring land owners after completion of the development if necessary.  It would seem that they must now start to think slightly differently!

Tenants Rights - Changes to the rules

The Civil Procedure Rules are being amended and some of those amendments have consequences for mortgage lenders who have mortgages over tenanted (rather than owner-occupied) property.

In particular the rule changes will allow tenants about whom the lender has no knowledge (that is to say tenants who the property owner has not told the lender about!) who are living in a mortgaged property to apply to the court for postponement of any repossession order granted in favour of the lender.

That obviously has repercussions for lenders being able to sell the property to recover their loan.

The new rules also require lenders to notify tenants and occupiers of a property before taking steps to enforce a possession order.

In those circumstances any tenant who the lender has had no previous knowledge of can apply to the lender for a delay repossession to allow the tenant time to find another home.

If the lender does not agree to an extension of time the tenant may apply to the court for a decision.

At the moment we can only speculate about what effect these changes may have on the willingness of lenders to make mortgage advances to landlords in relation to "buy to let" properties.

Changes to the Building Regulations

The Government has published two new sets of legislation relating to the building control regime in England and Wales.

Many of the changes in the new regulations deal with "tidying up" the current regulations in order to make them easier to understand (we hope!)

In addition, though, there are also some more meaty changes - including the widening of the provisions for self-certification to cover a greater range of activities which deal with the improvement of the energy efficiency of a building.

A proper understanding of the new provisions is vital for anyone who regularly deals with building control issues- especially those businesses whose bread and butter is dealing with construction and property.

The new rules come into force on 1 October 2010, but it may be some while after that before detailed guidance is published.  Until that guidance is forthcoming, anyone seeking clarification on the new regulations will need to look at the government's documentation showing the differences between the 2000 and 2010 regulations.

Buckles seminar and workshop programme

Tomorrow evening (16th September) we are putting on a seminar which will be of interest to landlords regardless of the profile of their property portfolio since it deals with something  which is currently of conern to all landlords - the insolvency of a tenant.

If you would like to attend, or would like further information, please contact Sara Coggins on 01733 888735 or by email at sara.coggins@buckles-law.co.uk

On Thursday 23rd and 30th September the firm's social housing team is running a seminar dealing with issues affecting social landlords.

On 6th October the firm's employment team is running a seminar dealing with the issue of restrictive covenants in employment contracts - an area of law which is a caselaw minefield!

Finally in October, the firm's commecial property team is hosting a much more laid back event - we're going to be indulging in some wine tasting!

If you'd like to attend any of the above seminars or events, or would like to be placed on the firm's mailing lists for future events please contact Sara Coggins (as above!)

Rave Reviews for Buckles!

The independent client's guide to law firms, the Legal 500, published its 2010 edition online yesterday - some really great reviews for the teams here and individuals within those teams!  Check out what the Legal 500 has to say about the firm here - http://tinyurl.com/2wd7hzl

Another Accident at Work story..........

A worker who slipped in flooded toilets has won an undisclosed sum in compensation.


The man worked at a community centre and went to investigate a problem in the toilets. Someone had put the plugs in the washbasins and left the taps running and water had overflowed onto the floor. As he went to turn off the taps, the man slipped and fell, fracturing his elbow.



It emerged that this was not the first time someone had deliberately caused a flood at the premises. There had been a similar incident in another set of toilets at the community centre. However, no action had been taken on the part of the man’s employer to prevent the potential problem, such as removing the plugs or fitting each tap with a flow-limiting device.

The man brought a personal injury claim, but his employer denied liability for the accident. In court, the judge found that the employer had failed to put in place adequate health and safety measures. As well as steps to prevent a recurrence of flooding, there should have been a system in place for making regular checks on the toilets as the community centre was used by members of the public. Also, training should have been provided on how to deal safely with a flooding incident.