Mediation
Leicester

This was a neighbour dispute. The claimants advised that since they moved into their property, they had experienced a huge amount of disturbance from their neighbour. Who had a number of physical and mental impairments.  

Loud screaming, banging objects on the connecting walls as well loud crying were common, sometimes daily occurrences. Stating that she was making their lives a complete misery. Having complained they were told the girl had a right to stay there.

They alleged they could not rest in their own home due to the noise levels. A key concern was their father who was of 75 years of age, who got extremely distressed and upset with the amount of noise coming from next door. Which started to affect his health as his blood pressure which was already high, started to increase.  The mediation was tense, emotional, took place via Zoom and lasted some four hours.

This was a workplace dispute, two employees had a number of issues with one another. Stemming from a number of new changes which had been implemented, one being a senior member of the organisation.

Lack of trust, suspicion and alleged ineffective communication were all key drivers which were fuelling the dispute, alongside some underlying issues.

The mediator used a great deal of tact, diplomacy as well as being very empathetic to one of the employees who was extremely emotional, facilitating the moving of the employees from the past to the future. 

Overall, they found the process useful and constructive and we managed to resolve this year long dispute. Click here to read the testimonial.

This was a dispute over £192,000 between two sisters regarding their mother’s will. Both sisters were named as executors but only one of them had taken out probate. The sister who had probate would not progress the administration of the estate.

The sister who did not have probate was considering making a court application to have her sister removed from being the executor. So that the estate could be distributed. One sister was London based, the other Leicester. The mediation took place via Zoom, lasted nine hours and settled.

This claim was brought by the Claimant for specific performance and / or damages in relation to a purported contract for the sale of a piece of agricultural land situated in the village of Bhasi Hast Khan, District Hoshiapur, Punjab, India. In addition the Claimant is seeking repayment to him of money which he states he has spent on the land in pursuance of the alleged contract.

The Particulars of Claim assert that in October 1994 the Defendant orally agreed to sell the land to the Claimant for the price at which she had recently purchased it. The Claimant alleges that he paid a total of £7,487.50 to the Defendant comprising of £2,500.00 paid in India to discharge loans taken by the Defendant to fund the original purchase, £1,500.00 paid to the Defendant in cash and £3,487.50 paid into the Defendants account held at the then Halifax Building Society.

The Claimant further asserts that repeated requests were made of the Defendant to convey the property into his name. Some in the presence of the family members but she has failed to do so.

According to the Claimant there was a meeting between the parties in February 2008 at which the Defendant demanded 300,000.00 rupees to convey the title in the land to the Claimant and an agreement to that effect was drawn up. These additional monies were allegedly offered to the Defendant in July 2008 and tendered by way of a cheque in the sum of £4,300.00 on the 6 September 2010 but was declined on both occasions. This cheque was allegedly sent to the Defendant under the cover of a recorded delivery letter from the Claimant’s solicitors. The letter was returned undelivered.

As to the monies spent on the land, the Claimant claims expenditure of £59,200.27 since 1996 and has sought to substantiate that with a hand written list of expenses. Of this amount £47, 058.00 relates to grown “trees”.

The Defendant admits that she did orally agree to convey the land to the Claimant in or around October 1995 on condition that he would pay the market value of the land as at that date. The Defendant denies having received any monies from the Claimant as alleged. The Claimant has been put to strict proof of all payments made by him.

It is admitted by the Defendant that a meeting took place at her home on 17 February 2008 at which the Claimant agreed to pay 300,000.00 rupees to the Defendant on the 10 May 2009 for the land. The Defendant denies that the Claimant sought to make payment of this sum in July 2008 as alleged by him or indeed has made payment in pursuant of this agreement at all. In January 2010 the Defendant sold the land in question to her brother in law.

With regard to the monies allegedly spent on the land it is denied that Claimant has spent monies as he asserts and is put to strict proof thereof. Further it is the Defendant’s position that even if the Claimant has spent any money on the land he has done so without having title to the land, and accordingly, the Defendant is not obliged to reimburse or compensate him for the same.

It must be noted that although the Claimant alleges that he has paid a total of £7,487.00 he has to date failed to provide any evidence of payment. Although the Defendant has given authority to the Claimant to obtain entries of her bank account at the Halifax Plc and for the Central Bank of India, at which bank she does not hold an account, no evidence of payment has been produced.

As to the monies allegedly spent on the land the Claimant has again failed to provide any documentary evidence of such expenditures. Further it must be noted that it has recently come to the Defendant’s knowledge that she has been named as a second Defendant in proceedings that have been issued by the Claimant in India in respect of this piece of land.

Although requests were made to the Claimant’s solicitors on a number of occasions for the disclosure of these proceedings, the Claimant failed to do so. It was pursuant to an Order of the Court that the Claimant gave disclosure of the proceedings in India. His explanation for the failure to give earlier disclosure of these documents was that he was not aware that the Defendant had been named as a Defendant in those proceedings.

The existence of the proceedings in India resulted in the Defendant making an application for the majority of the Claimant’s claim to be struck out on the basis that the existence of two sets of proceedings in two jurisdictions for the same relief amount to an abuse of process. At the hearing of that application it was ordered by consent that these proceedings are to be stayed until such time as evidence has been produced to the Court by the Claimant that the proceedings in India have been discontinued.

This concerned a commercial property. The landlord was concerned about a series of alleged breaches by tenant. The tenant earnestly entered into dialogue with the landlord to resolve matters.

Who thought incorrectly that the breaches were worth substantial sums. Some £30,000 – £50,000, he also alleged rent arrears dating back to the start of the lease. Which did not entirely make sense, as he never raised this before.

It also appeared that the landlord’s solicitor knew the landlord very well from previous cases. Highlighting a pattern of litigious behaviour. The tenant alleged that he had actually been threatened by the solicitor at a social occasion in the town. At the mediation the landlord’s son attended in place of his father.

Feelings on all sides very extremely high including a shouting match at a site visit at the beginning of the mediation. The mediation lasted four hours and was in person.

Since 1992, the Claimant was in the business of the wholesale of clothing and footwear and had traded for 26 years. The Claimant was one of the largest sellers of high-quality shoes in the United Kingdom with sales at one time in excess of more than 6 million pairs sold each year to over 200-600 High Street outlets and independent stores around the country.

The Claimant’s shoes were manufactured in China by several factories and then the administration of the exporting of the shoes was done predominantly by another company also owned by the Claimant. The goods were imported by sea freight and distributed in the United Kingdom to the Claimant’s customers.

Part of the Claimant’s role was to send blanket emails to freight companies to tender for the freight forwarding of goods from China to the United Kingdom. He would send a blanket email to freight companies to provide a quote for the costs of importing the shoes.

As he dealt with the freight companies on a regular basis, they were all aware of which port in China the shoes were coming from and which port in the UK they were coming to. All freight forwarders were also aware that the goods needed to come in on the fastest vessels given the fashion trade turning around styles and fashion very quickly and shoes needed to be distributed as soon as possible to keep up with the current trends.

The Claimant’s first encounter with the Defendant was in 2010, whereby the Claimant sent the blanket email to tender. The Defendant was in the business of providing road, sea and air freight services globally.

The Defendant provided competitive prices and guaranteed their team would secure the capacity required. Where they required it and when they required it therefore, the Claimant decided to accept their pricing which was sent to them by email and agreed to them importing their shoes to the UK on that basis.

The Defendant carried out the freight services from 2009/2010 to July 2018 and invoiced the Claimant according to the agreed pricing. The Defendant carried out their services to the Claimant in an efficient and consistent manner therefore they continued to use them.

Every quarter the Claimant would send his blanket emails to all the freight forwarders to tender requesting a quote, and the Defendant always quoted and gained their business on most occasions. Unfortunately, their relationship became sour in 2018. After many years of building a relationship with the Defendant it became apparent that the Defendant had been deceiving the Claimant by manipulating the invoices for the containers and vessels by claiming more money than what was agreed.

Following an audit the Claimant’s Accountants came across several invoices with duplicated vessel numbers and containers. After carrying out further investigations, the accountants realised that it was a frequent occurrence happening every 6^th / 7^th invoice.

It became evident that £258,635.42 had been overpaid due to the deception. The defendant of course denied this, and vigorously defended the claim. The mediation lasted six hours and a settlement was reached.

This mediation centered around a business dispute between two best friends. The Claimant (C) invited the Defendant (D) to work at her nursing home. The C was involved in other business ventures which took up the majority of her time.

Therefore she needed someone she could trust, effectively to run the nursing home. After several discussions a good basic salary a promise of a company car and a share of the profits the D agreed.

From the very start until 2001, the D was exceptional in running the business, the C had very little involvement in the business apart from perhaps a weekly chat. Even those chats were more about their friendship rather than business meetings. The business gained a superb reputation, of which the C was very proud.

In 1991 there was a property market crash and the C’s various other property related businesses suffered very badly, she then had to rely heavily on the income from the nursing home. It was then that C fully realised D’s value, and C discussed with her husband how to reward D more one day in a more substantial way.

In 1995 C acquired another company, this business was successful, but in 1996 it ran into cash-flow problems caused by inadequate control of the sales ledger. The D offered to help and C readily agreed, the situation improved steadily and the D was again a great asset to this business too, but she was not rewarded financially.

In 1998 as a result of continuing problems in the property market, C’s husband sold the retirement complex to the C & D. He was happy with the arrangement as he believed it was a good way of rewarding the D and relieving him of a burden.

It was not long after this that the D contracted cancer, the C then took back the shares in trust granted to D, until she recovered. Which made business sense, thankfully D eventually made a recovery.

In 1999 the C left her husband for a relationship with the D’s brother, the D was still a good friend and colleague and was helpful right up until the C’s divorce in 2000. Subsequently the C involved the D in many of her businesses giving her a share in a number of them.

The C was concerned that if anything happened to her that the D would be financially secure and that she would be able to look after C’s mother and brother.  A few years passed and C realized that the D’s attitude and professionalism changed. She appeared now to adopt a sense of entitlement and a pompous attitude. Joint decisions were now being made alone by the D.

C then discovered that across the portfolio of businesses some £470,000 seemed to be missing. Missing by way of not accounted for, spent on items she had not known of nor authorized. Strange invoices, and that the D had taken residence of a rental property which was in the property portfolio, without permission, not paying the monthly rental of £1500. Which had some £60,000 worth of recent refurbishments.

A massive argument ensued, C shortly thereafter instructed solicitors and a claim was issued. The D defended the claim, and counter claimed for £350,000. Stating that a lot of the £470,000 was on the C’s approval. She had not misappropriated any funds. She had taken £50,000, but the C clearly authorized this.

The C advised, it was always a loan, the D advised it was a gift. Part of the counter claim was for dividends not paid to the D, alongside monies she had pumped into the businesses to assist with cash flow. The mediation was in person and took nine hours.

The finance of a tractor. Alleged defective, arrears accumulated as the customer refused to pay the finance as he could not use the tractor. A claim for £20,000 was brought. The mediation lasted three hours and settled. 

This firm of solicitors were chasing a client over unpaid fees. The client refused to pay the fees for a variety of reasons. All which were deemed as just feeble excuses. The mediation was settled within four hours.