Yorkshire
Mediation
- 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 Yorkshire mediators cover all of Yorkshire.
- End your Yorkshire dispute of any nature in 1 day.
- Mediate from anywhere in Yorkshire or via Zoom.
- 100% Confidential & No Obligation
Yorkshire Mediations
Yorkshire Mediation is an area that we serve. Home to a host of attractions, such as the National Railway Museum York, North Yorkshire Moors Railway, The Deep and Yorkshire Wildlife Park. It is also home to several lawyers, companies & voluntary bodies that we have had the honor of mediating for. We have dedicated Yorkshire mediators who live, work in and cover the whole of Yorkshire.
Yorkshire Locals
Being local our Yorkshire mediators can be with you within days. Equally they provide online mediation via Zoom & telephone mediation services. They have been providing Yorkshire mediation services for several years in a cost effective and confidential manner.
Yorkshire Mediators
Although we cover the whole of Yorkshire. The bulk of our mediations have been in and from Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Doncaster, East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull, Kirklees, Leeds, North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Rotherham, Sheffield, Wakefield and York. As well as its surrounding areas, our mediators will travel to you.
Yorkshire Dispute Types
Covering every type of civil, commercial, workplace, employment, family & boundary dispute, with a very high success rate. Save money on expensive legal, expert and court fees. Save time, stop wasting it on court and tribunal actions! Resolve your dispute within 4-8 hours.
YORKSHIRE MEDIATION VIDEO
CLICK ON THE MEDIATORS
NAME TO VIEW THEIR WHOLE CV
Director, International Commercial & Workplace Mediator & Trainer
Arbitrator, Adjudicator, Med – Arb specialist
Our Yorkshire Mediation Services Have Helped
Two companies entered into a deal for the supply of animals. The livestock was not delivered despite payment. Then there was a long-running ownership battle. The value of the dispute was just under £90,000. The in-person mediation lasted less than a day and resulted in a settlement.
The Defendant (D) was a business and the Claimant (C) arranged the supply and servicing of computer equipment.
On the 12th March 2012 an administrator for the D, signed a hire agreement for 20 Hewlett Packard printers for a minimum 36 month hire period at a charge of £1.65 per print at £2846.25. The agreement was arranged by the C who supplied the printers.
The C’s service contract was signed by the D on the 30th September 2011 with regard to the 20 printers (it was not understood the difference in dates between the 2 agreements which related to the same 20 printers). The service agreement gives a charge of £1.72 per black and white copy but the D only ever paid the amounts set out in the hire agreement.
Unlike the hire agreement the service contract did not give its length on the face of the contract. The length of the contract was hidden on the reverse of the contract in clause 10.1 which said that the contract was for an initial period of 5 years.
There were two further similar agreements between the parties. A hire agreement for 2 Olivetti printers at a charge of £1.5 for b & w prints and £6.5 for colour prints at £435 per quarter. The agreement was signed by the D on the 14th February 2013 and was for a period of 36 months.
There was a service contract in relation to the printers dated the 14th February 2013 giving the same copy charges as the hire agreement and the same term length as the earlier agreement.
It was common ground that the hire agreements ended and then the C issued an invoice ‘In relation to monies due under contracts signed 30.09.11 and 14.02.13’ for £11,790.12 plus VAT of £2358.02 together with interest. The D did not understand how the charges were calculated so the C set out the same in the Reply to the Defence. However, the C was claiming on the basis of the payments which were made by the D under the hire agreement as no separate payment was made for the service charges. The printers were no longer on hire, so these payments were not accruing as no prints were being used.
The D disputed the whole of the claim on 2 bases. The first is that the D felt that he was misled into signing the service contracts. At no time was he told that the service contracts were for 2 years longer than the minimum term of the hire agreements.
The agreements seemed to be designed to mislead as the period of 36 months was clearly written on the front of the hire agreement whereas the term of the service contract was hidden in the small print on the rear. The D had no reason to check the dates as he assumed that the two contracts which related to the hire of the same printers would be for the same period and the difference was not brought to his attention. If it had been he says that he would have not signed the service contracts.
The second point is that the C had suffered no loss as they had not had to provide service for the period after the hire agreements ended, so they had no costs in relation to this and all the claim can be is a penalty clause which the courts no not approve of.
The D believes that there was no merit in the claim, but recognised the economic consequences of prolonged litigation and therefore agreed to mediation. The mediation was in person, lasted two hours and settled. Read the testimonial here.
