Mediation
Brighton

This was a claim ostensibly concerning access rights over the Claimants’ (‘Cs’) property, but which hides a much more pernicious chain of events involving allegations of racism and harassment against the Defendants (D’s).

The C’s are the freehold proprietors of the Property, from where they operate a GP surgery.  The D’s operate a dispensing pharmacy within the Property, pursuant to a lease dated 1 November 2017 (‘the Lease’).  The pharmacy business was previously owned and operated by a former partner in Cs’ surgery.  The D’s acquired the pharmacy business from the former Dr and took on the Lease.

There were extensive and protracted negotiations prior to the grant of the Lease; these negotiations included the provision of access rights to the D’s over certain parts of the Surgery.  These included:

• A right to use the tea and coffee making facilities within the Surgery (i.e. small kitchenette on the first floor) (‘the Tea & Coffee Rights’);
• A right to use a consultation room for the purposes of preparing ‘Blister Packs’ for elderly, housebound, disabled and vulnerable patients within the community and for the purposes of preparing pharmaceutical provisions to two local care homes, for which the Pharmacy paid to the Surgery a ‘rent’ or ‘charge’ for the use of the room (‘the Room Rights’);
• A right to access the Surgery lobby, via front and side door, to liaise with Surgery staff and doctors concerning matters common to the Surgery and pharmacy businesses (‘the General Access Rights’).

Following an application for an interim injunction made by the C’s, the D’s have temporarily been prevented from utilising any of these rights.   The impact on their business, health and wellbeing has been palpable.  The C’s have given the usual cross-undertaking in damages, and the D’s are confident that this undertaking will be invoked following trial.  The C’s should expect to pay the D’s a substantial sum of money in light of the way in which they have restricted the above rights.

The D’s were aware that the legal dispute covers one small element of their grievances and does nothing to resolve the ongoing relationship between the parties which must always put first the health and wellbeing of the community and the many shared patients of both medical establishments.  

The C’s should be under no illusion over the D’s desire to pursue this claim to trial.  The other ongoing issues will likely require separate proceedings should the parties not be able to regulate their interactions going forwards.

The D’s believe that this mediation would be best used to resolve the following issues between the parties, several of which go beyond the legal dispute but which regulate the parties ongoing relationship:

1. Restoration of Access Rights
2. Aborted discussions over Extension to Pharmacy
3. Implementing a Protocol for raising ongoing complaints/concerns
4. Ceasing ongoing harassment and instances of racism (overt or otherwise)
5. Ceasing ongoing defamatory comments to public & affiliated bodies/ organisations
6. Payment of damages
7. Costs

The mediation took place in person, lasted ten hours and finally a settlement was achieved.