England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Valentine v Alan & Ors [2003] EWHC 9043 (Costs) (29 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9043.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9043 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 



No.23 of 2003

---

Valentine v Alan & Ors
29 July 2003
Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson, Chadwick and Hale LJJ)

Having dismissed the claimants appeal against the refusal to grant him relief in the court below for alleged trespass by his neighbours of his land, the Court of Appeal had to consider the issue of costs. The claimant contended that the court should either disallow, or at any event reduce, the costs otherwise payable by the claimant to the respondents on the basis that they had unreasonably refused to mediate before the commencement of the trial.

The respondents put before the court an extensive bundle of correspondence from which it was apparent that they had made real efforts to settle the dispute by making offers which were reasonable and generous. In addition, they had sought a "round the table" meeting. All these attempts to settle were rebuffed by the claimant.

In those circumstances the court, distinguishing the case of Dunnitt v Railtrack Plc [2002] 1 WLR 2434; (Unreported Appeal Decision No.7 of 2002) held that the respondent were not unreasonable in refusing mediation, and ought not therefore to have their primary entitlement to costs reduced.

Additionally, the court held that when Arden LJ granted permission to appeal she had concluded that it was not clear that the claimant could have reached an agreement by mediation and that the failure to mediate was of no causal effect. Thus there was no jurisdiction in the full court to go behind that decision.