Mediation
Stafford

In summary, it was the Defendants position that the sum of £50,000 was retained in their bank account in November 2009 upon the Claimant’s insistence.  Between November 2009 and April 2010 the money was held on trust for the Claimants.

In the winter of 2012, the money was then gifted to the Defendants and it was agreed by all the parties that the money was to be used to pay the shortfall of their mortgage following the redemption of the endowment policy secured against the Defendants property.

Subsequently the claimant advised that she wanted her money back. The defendants advised it was a gift so why would they return it, equally the money had all been spent. The claimant argued that it was always a loan, and never meant to not be repaid. A claim and litigation followed. The mediation took place via a telephone mediation took four hours and was settled by way of a Consent Order.

A landlord and tenant dispute concerning disrepairs and rent arrears. The tenant claimed that the premises were defective from day one.

With the part furnished property having faulty and unsafe appliances. Alleging that the electrics were in fact faulty. Resulting in a claim for £8,000 and counter claim for £2500. The mediation took place in person, lasting four hours.

The defendants purchased a property with a view to extending the existing dwelling or to demolishing the existing dwelling and erecting a larger dwelling on the site. Whilst works were being undertaken, they did not occupy the property.

The claimants alleged their works encroached onto their boundary. This led to years of litigation and a very bitter atmosphere between the parties. Of course the defendants claimed, they had not encroached at all. And the claimants were put to strict proof to substantiate their claim.

Proceedings were issued, claiming for a declaration as to the boundaries between the claimants and defendant’s property. An injunction restraining the defendant’s from encroaching on to the claimants land, damages and legal costs. After a tense five hours, a settlement was reached.

A contractual dispute between two companies over an introduction fee of a candidate for employment. A £10,000 claim was brought. The mediation was by way of telephone, took four hours and settled. 

An eighty thousand dispute over the ownership of three horses. The dispute arose due to massive miscommunications between the two parties. The mediation took six hours, was in person and settled. 

The Claimant (C) was a manged print solutions provider.  It sold a range of copiers and printers along with support agreements, audio visual and IT services.  It also arranged finance and leasing for its customers.

The C’s customers varied from small businesses contracting for a single machine to large corporate clients leasing as many as 600 machines.  There are over 4,000 machines contracted to the C in the UK.

The C had two service contracts with the Defendant (D).  Both contracts were subject to a 5-year service agreement with corresponding 3-year leases (both of these were the minimum terms).

On 14 October 2013 the D wrote to the C requesting that all the invoices from 1 November 2013 be made out to D’s new company on account of a restructure.  The C complied with this wish.

The D terminated their contract with immediate effect on 9 February 2015 and as a consequence were supplied with an invoice for liquidated damages, in accordance with the C’s terms and conditions. The invoice dated 5 March 2015 was in the sum of £14,148.14 and was the subject matter of this dispute. Proceedings were issued on 1 May 2015 against the D.  Who initially sought to defend purely on the basis that the claim was against the wrong D.  Having been supplied with a copy of the letter of 14 October 2013 their Solicitors applied to amend their Defence (an application that was consented to subject to payment of costs).

From the C’s perspective there were two primary issues to this dispute; had it pursued the correct D. Was it able to invoice the liquidated damages or was this part of its terms and conditions unenforceable as a penalty clause. The C’s position in respect of these two issues was as follows.

The letter to the C of 14 October 2013 was sufficiently clear.  It was the C’s view that this was an assignment of the contract to the D or at the very least an agreement to take financial responsibility for the contract.  Any ambiguity in this document would of course be found against the D.

The D had effectively acknowledged that this was a weak argument with its application to amend, it was a source of surprise to the C that they continued with this part of the defence.

The C’s invoice for liquidated damages was a genuine estimate of loss the figures were based on average monthly turnover for the preceding 12 months multiplied by the remaining months on the contract multiplied by 75%.

The liquidated damages clause was drafted by a previous firm of Solicitors.  Whilst an authoritative opinion has not been given by a Judge, a number of claims in respect of these clauses have been settled by parties represented by Solicitors and Counsel and the C had recently been successful at Trial in the Worcester County Court in respect of an invoice relating to liquidated damages, albeit the claim was defended on a different basis (identity of the D). The mediation was in person, lasted two hours, and settled. Read the testimonial here.

A complicated boundary dispute. The mediation took seven hours was in person and settled. Read the testimonial here.