The judge held that the key factor in the issue of costs was the landlord's willingness to mediate, which was refused by the tenant. The formal pledge given by the Lord Chancellor's Department was to be taken seriously and the tenant should have abided by that pledge. As the tenant had not abided by the pledge it was not entitled to recover its costs from the landlord. In conclusion, no order was made as to costs.
For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354
There have been series of cases dealing with the effect that a refusal to mediate will have on the ability to recover the costs of an action. The most widely known is Dunnett vs Railtrack. In that case the winning party was not awarded their costs because of their unreasonable refusal to mediate. This is another case that follows that reasoning. However, this case also highlights the importance of the Lord Chancellor's formal ADR pledge that was issued on 23 March 2001. The pledge states that all government departments and their agencies will seek to use ADR wherever possible in order to avoid litigation. As a result of this case it is clear that all of the government departments and their agencies must now seriously consider ADR in order to avoid adverse cost consequences.