Mediation
Walsall

This mediation centered around an alleged breach of contract and professional negligence. In short the alleged overcharging of legal fees.

It was a mere misunderstanding of how the legal fees had mounted up. Through the mediation the defendants were given a clear explanation of how their fees had been calculated.

As well as making it clear, that they were not overcharged, and that the fees were were payable. An agreement was reached upon how the fees would be paid, via an installment plan the defendants could afford. Click here to read the testimonial.

Workplace dispute. Being updated. 

Being updated. 

This mediation involved a very upsetting; acrimonious bitter and complicated Sikh family dispute. The subject matter concerned a property, a TOLATA claim, deposit loaned and the proceeds of any sale. It was extremely delicate as the claimant was the ex-Mother in law of the defendant daughter in law.

Sadly the husband had committed suicide, which made tensions that little bit more frayed. A claim for £90,000 was brought. A solution was founded, which took less than one day, bearing in mind the dispute had been in litigation for nearly two years.

This mediation concerned a Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) dispute over various properties and business interests. The Defendant (D) was the Claimants’ (C) younger brother. The C had been a mentor and father figure to the D since 1998, providing guidance, financial and moral support.

When the D got married the C helped to provide the finance for the wedding. The D and his wife shared the home of the parties’ other brother a few roads away.

The D told the C that he wanted his own home, but could not afford to buy one. The C purchased a property providing a deposit of £6000. Alongside a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price in the D’s name.

The C paid the mortgage payments from day one and continued to do so. The initial intention was that this property would be provided by the C to be used as a family home by the D.

However, the D told the C that he was not happy living where he was and wanted to live near the C. The C agreed to arrange the purchase of the D’s current family home. Providing the deposit in the region of £25,000 with the balance of approximately £70,000 being raised by way of a mortgage in the D’s name. The property was registered in the D’s sole name, in the strict agreement that the previous property would be returned to the C at any time of his choosing. Once again, the D paid the monthly mortgage payments on the property and continued to do so.

The C subsequently asked the D to transfer the previous property into his sole name, as had been agreed. But the D has thus far agreed then changed his mind and refused on several occasions.

Not only has the C paid the mortgage on the D’s home, but he also provided employment for the D at one of his businesses. The D and his wife chose not to claim welfare benefits; however, the D chose to only work a few hours a week despite the C’s generous financial support

Subsequently C with his business partner wished to purchase a building for £355,000 to conduct a business. Unable to raise a mortgage due to a credit rating error. C borrowed the money from friends and family, as well as remortgaging his own home.

Subsequently the bank offered C a mortgage for the business premises. It was agreed between C, his business partner and D that the mortgage would be taken out in the D’s name and the business partner’s name. And that D would hold a 50% share of the property on trust for the C and would transfer this interest back to the C upon request.

C and his business partner paid the mortgage payments since day one and continued to do so. When C requested D to transfer the 50% interest in the property on several occasions. D finally demanded sums of money from the C in return for signing.

C issued proceedings stating that he should take ownership of all the properties and they should be transferred into his name. D advised he would do this, if C gave him £500,000. Based upon all the years he claimed he worked for C, helping him build his businesses. As well as helping him get the business premises mortgages which he profited from vastly. As well as paying all of the bills on both houses whilst he was in occupation.

The mediation was in person, lasted eight hours and a solution was found.

The Applicant and the First Respondent got married in India. Some fourteen years later they separated in the UK. Subsequently the Applicant petitioned for divorce. The Second Respondent was the older brother of the Applicant. The Second Respondent had a successful multi-million-pound clothing business based in the Midlands.

Which he founded over 22 years ago. Prior to establishing his business, the Second Respondent was involved in retail businesses for over 30 years. In addition to his clothing business, the Second Respondent operated a property development business which involved purchasing, developing and letting properties.

Whilst the Applicant was living in India, the Second Respondent loaned the Applicant funds in order to support him and his family over a period of four years. The First Respondent was aware that the Second Respondent was supporting them. When the Applicant and the First Respondent returned from India to live in England, the Second Respondent employed the Applicant in his catering business.

The First Respondent made a claim for a number of the properties in the Second Respondents portfolio, stating that due to her marriage to his brother she was entitled to a share of either the houses, or some £450,000.

The mediation took seven hours and was in person.

This mediation concerned a property that had been renovated. Whereby the next door neighbour alleged the works had impacted upon his property, and caused considerable damage to it. A claim for around £25,000 was brought, within four hours mediation led to a resolution of this said dispute.  Click here to read the testimonial.