UK: ADR and building disputes

Last Updated: 4 May 2005
Article by Julian Bailey

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, litigants are expected to give serious consideration to whether their dispute can realistically be resolved out of court. The Court of Appeal has given recent indications that a party who unreasonably refuses to attempt to settle a dispute by mediation may be penalised by an adverse costs order. The Court of Appeal has now re-affirmed that position in Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358, a case which involved a small building dispute.

To view the article in full please see below:

Full Article

Under the Civil Procedure Rules, litigants are expected to give serious consideration to whether their dispute can realistically be resolved out of court. The Court of Appeal has given recent indications that a party who unreasonably refuses to attempt to settle a dispute by mediation may be penalised by an adverse costs order. The Court of Appeal has now re-affirmed that position in Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358, a case which involved a small building dispute.

The facts

The dispute that gave rise to the litigation was, in many ways, unremarkable. A married couple engaged the services of a builder to perform renovations and extensions to their home. The builder submitted claims for payment, as the work was performed. The first two of those claims were paid. But the builder's third payment claim was not. The owners refused to pay because, in their view, the builder's work was shoddy, and a substantial amount of money would be required to rectify it.

The dispute between the builder and the owners crystallised into litigation. The builder sued for payment for work performed, for slightly under £20,000. The owners counterclaimed for the cost of rectifying the defective works, and other matters, which they contended were worth in the order of £100,000.

The case was heard initially in the County Court, where the judge allowed the builder's claim for around £18,000, and allowed the owners' counterclaim to the extent of some £14,000 (plus interest and VAT). The net result was that the builder was entitled to recover around £5,000 from the owner. Thus, expert witnesses had been called, solicitors and counsel instructed, and expensive litigation was prosecuted with a five-day hearing – when the truth was that only £5K was at stake. The legal fees for both parties were in the order of £185K. The Court of Appeal described this disproportion as "horrific".

What made matters worse, and what attracted the scrutiny and ire of the Court of Appeal, was that very early in the dispute – well before litigation had been commenced – the builder had offered to try to settle the dispute by way of mediation, but the home owners had rejected this offer out-of-hand, with the only explanation proffered being that the issues in the case were too complex for mediation.

The trial judge's decision on costs

The starting point in awarding legal costs in legal proceedings is, in broad terms, that the unsuccessful party is to pay the successful party's costs. Put in legal phraseology, this is usually described under the rubric that "costs follow the event".

Here, the builder sued the owners, and succeeded substantially on his claim (recovering £18,000 or so, against a £20,000 claim). The trial judge awarded the builder the costs of his claim. The owners had also met with success in their counterclaim against the builder, but their success was relatively limited (i.e. they recovered around 15% of the value of their claim). Nevertheless, the partial success of the home owners could be said to justify the view that they ought to be paid the costs of their counterclaim, and that is what the judge ordered.

The Court of Appeal's decision

The trial judge's decision on costs was successfully appealed by the builder to the Court of Appeal. The builder contended that the approach taken by the trial judge to the award of costs was incorrect. The trial judge had incorrectly limited himself by adopting a rigid "costs follow the event" approach, and by doing so he failed to recognise that he had a broad discretion in awarding costs, including the ability to make a single award of costs to the builder for a proportion of its total costs (as opposed to making separate costs orders for each party's respective claim).

The builder's arguments found favour with the Court of Appeal, who allowed the appeal, and among other things awarded the builder 60% of his total legal costs, with the owners being required to bear all of their own costs. The Court held that the trial judge should have placed greater emphasis on the fact that the home owners were only marginally successful in their counterclaim, compared to the total amount which they claimed. The Court of Appeal also placed great emphasis on the way the home owners had conducted themselves, both before and during the litigation. Of particular importance was the fact the owners had never made an offer to settle the dispute, and moreover they had unreasonably refused to participate in a mediation which was suggested by the builder. On this last point, the Court had regard to the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002 (Law-Now, 12.5.2004), where it was held that the reasonableness or not of a litigant's refusal to participate in ADR would be judged by having regard to, among other things, (a) the nature of the dispute; (b) the merits of the case; (c) whether the costs of the ADR would be disproportionately high; and (d) whether the ADR had a reasonable prospect of success.

When considering these four matters, Ward LJ (with whom Rix LJ agreed) was scathing of the owners' conduct, holding:

  • "a small building dispute is par excellence the kind of dispute which…lends itself to ADR";
  • "the merits of the case favoured mediation. The [owners] behaved unreasonably in believing, if they did, that their case was so watertight that they need not engage in attempts to settle. They were counterclaiming almost as much to remedy some defective work as they had contracted to pay for the whole stipulated work. There was clearly room for give and take. The stated reason for refusing mediation that the matter was too complex for mediation is plain nonsense";
  • "the costs of ADR would have been a drop in the ocean compared with the fortune that has been spent on litigation"; and
  • "the way in which [the builder] modestly presented his claim and readily admitted many of the defects, allied with the finding that he was transparently honest and more than ready to admit where he was wrong and to shoulder responsibility for it augered well for mediation. The [builder] has satisfied me that mediation would have had a reasonable prospect of success. The [owners] cannot rely on their own obstinacy to assert that mediation had no reasonable prospect of doing so".

Despite these findings on appeal, the Court did not impose a costs sanction against the owners for their conduct. The primary reason for not doing so (and one senses that it was a close thing) was that the offer to mediate, and the subsequent refusal, occurred at a time (i.e. 2001) before strong judicial pronouncements were given by the Court of Appeal (from 2002 onwards) as to the importance of ADR under the Civil Procedure Rules, and that costs sanctions may apply against litigants who unreasonably refuse to participate in ADR. The present position was summarised by Ward LJ, in remarks made directly to the legal profession, but which are necessarily of importance to those in the building industry:

"The court has given its stamp of approval to mediation and it is now the legal profession which must become fully aware of and acknowledge its value. The profession can no longer with impunity shrug aside reasonable requests to mediate. The parties cannot ignore a proper request to mediate simply because it was made before the claim was issued. With court fees escalating it may be folly to do so. I draw attention, moreover, to paragraph 5.4 of the pre-action protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes – which I doubt was at the forefront of the parties' minds – which expressly requires the parties to consider at a pre-action meeting whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation. These defendants [the owners] have escaped the imposition of a costs sanction in this case but defendants in a like position in the future can expect little sympathy if they blithely battle on regardless of the alternatives"

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 03/05/2005.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.