Mediation
Newcastle
- Save thousands of pounds.
- No Court or Employment Tribunal.
- No more stress, worry & sleepless nights.
- We can mediate for you within 14 days of contact.
- Our Newcastle mediators cover all of Newcastle.
- End your Newcastle dispute of any nature in 1 day.
- Mediate from anywhere in Newcastle or via Zoom.
- 100% Confidential & No Obligation
Newcastle Mediation
Mediation Newcastle is an area we serve. As well as being home to a variety of spectacular buildings, attractions and amenities. Such as We have dedicated Newcastle mediators who live, work in and cover the whole of Newcastle.
Newcastle Locals
Being local our Newcastle mediators can be with you within days. Equally they provide online mediation via Zoom & telephone mediation services. They have been providing Newcastle mediation services for several years in a cost effective and confidential manner.
Newcastle Mediators
We cover Fenham, Forest Hall, Gateshead, Gosforth, Heaton, Jesmond, Killingworth, Newcastle upon Tyne , Ouseburn, Quayside, Sunderland & Tyneside North & South. As well as its surrounding areas, our mediators will travel to you.
Newcastle Dispute Types
Covering every type of civil, commercial, workplace, employment, family & neighbour dispute, with a very high success rate. Save money in expensive legal, expert and court fees. Save time, stop wasting it on court and legal actions!
MEDIATION NEWCASTLE VIDEO
CLICK ON THE MEDIATORS
NAME TO VIEW THEIR WHOLE CV
Director, International Commercial & Workplace Mediator & Trainer
Judge, Commercial & Family Mediator
Our Newcastle Mediation Services Have Helped
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
This was a right of way dispute over parcels of land. The Claimant’s (C) believed they enjoyed the right of deviation. The doctrine of deviation applies where an obstacle has been placed in the path of a right of way by the owner of the servient tenament thereby obstructing the right of the dominant tenement to exercise its right of way.
The defendants (D) asserted that even if C were able to show that some sort of right of way existed (which was not admitted), surely there was no obstruction to that right of way but a destruction of that right.
It was also argued why did the C, or its predecessor, fail to raise these arguments previously and on what basis did they assume that the C continued to enjoy the right of way despite it being clear that both it and its predecessor had abandoned any such right by entering into a lease of the site. The mediation lasted a day, and an agreement was reached. Read the testimonial here.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
This dispute concerned parcels of land and a lease. The would-be claimants (C) held the freehold and leasehold estate interests in land and mines & minerals south of the River X within the vicinity of the Roads and Bridge.
The defendant’s (D) had ownership of land in and around the various quarries in the area over the years, the question as to the existence of a right of way benefiting parcels of land and mine & mineral interests to the South of the Roads and Bridge was never satisfactorily concluded.
Albeit that the only access to the quarry and other land to the South of the River X (within the vicinity of the Roads and Bridge), had been over a pre-1960s bridge and subsequently a replacement bridge. The C wished to assert their rights in respect to the Roads and Bridge.
In addition to various freehold and leasehold interests the C’s held in the land and mines and minerals South of the River X, the C also had a leasehold interest in the Roads and Bridge (“the Existing Lease”) and renewal proceedings had commenced.
Given the onerous nature of the repairing obligations within the Existing Lease and Renewal Lease and as a result of enquiries with other estate owners in the vicinity (who are adamant that a right of way has always existed over the Roads and Bridge and the old bridge before it benefitting all land to the south of the Roads and Bridge), the C’s undertook a full investigation of the access rights over the same.
It was concluded from these investigations that each estate interest within each of the C’s title (in land or mines & minerals, as the case may be), benefits from a right of way over the Roads and Bridge for all purposes ancillary to its use (quarrying having been undertaken as early as 1858). In that regard the grant of the Existing Lease to the C’s predecessor, in 1987 simply suspended those rights as against them (and now as against interests owned by the C until such time that the existing Lease was terminated and the rights resurrected.
The C intended to apply to the HM Land Registry to register their rights. If the D disputed the C’s rights, they had instructed their solicitors to seek a Court declaration as to the existence of those rights. In addition, the C sought to stay the lease renewal proceedings until the outcome of the Part 8 proceedings. The mediation took place in person, lasted eight hours and settled.
