Unreasonable conduct comes at a cost!


This case is an illustration of the pro-ADR stance, which the courts continue to follow.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 7 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

That includes conduct by which a party refuses to agree to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] and PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013]).

Parties are obliged to consider ADR before and during the litigation process.

One of the factors, which the court will have regard to when exercising its powers as to costs is ‘any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under part 36 apply’ (CPR 44.2(4)(c)). This was a determining factor in the recent case of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems Europe Limited v BAE Systems (Al Diriyah C41) Ltd [2014].

When the court comes to consider costs in a case, it has regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties before as well as during the proceedings (CPR 44.2 (4) and (5)).

This case is an illustration of the pro-ADR stance, which the courts continue to follow, but it also demonstrates how the courts will consider the relevant facts of each case when determining whether a refusal to mediate is unreasonable for the purposes of CPR 44.

The case also highlights the significance of CPR 44.2(4)(c). It follows from Northrop that where a successful party in litigation can demonstrate that it has made a without prejudice offer to settle, then that may suffice for the purposes of showing the court that is has not acted unreasonably in rejecting an offer to engage in ADR.

Howard Tilney

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.