000			01272cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS65935
008			021008n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u120032
100			_aBingham, T
245		2	_aA tragic obsession
260			_c2002
490			_aBuilding _v267(8251) 20 September 2002, 58-59(2)
520			_aComments on the current view that, although mediation is not compulsory in law, any unjustified failure to accept mediation opportunities with a realistic prospect of resolution would result in adverse consequences at the litigation stage. Recent CA cases have seen the successful parties severely criticised and legal costs awarded against them. However there are exceptions. In "Hurst v Leeming", the losing claimant (H) argued that he had suggested mediation but the defendant (L) hadrejected it and therefore H should not pay costs. The judge ruled that H's character, obsessed by a sense of personal injustice, was such that mediation would get nowhere and awarded costs against him.
590			_aABS
650			_aALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
650			_aALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
650			_aMEDIATION
650			_aHURST V LEEMING
650			_aLEGAL COSTS
690			_aDispute resolution _96236
942			_n0
999			_c71322 _d71322