000			01698cab a2200277 4500
001			##L133485
008			060512n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133485
041	0		_aeng
110	2		_aKings Chambers _94926
245	0	0	_aCost cutting
260			_c2006
490		0	_aNew Law Journal _v156(7223) 5 May 2006, 737-739(3)
520			_aExamines how far courts are prepared to make orders for costs against litigants who refuse to negotiate or take part in mediation. In "Hickman v Blake Lapthorn" ([2006] EWHC 12 (QB), unreported) it was held that a barrister who had legitimate and reasonable reasons for refusing to mediate should not be penalised as regards costs. There is no certainty, therefore, that courts will penalise parties who refuse to mediate. Where a compromise of a dispute has been reached, but there is no agreement as to costs, the decisions in "Promar International Ltd v Clarke" ([2006] EWCA Civ 332, unreported) and "BCT Software Solutions Ltd v C Brewer and Sons Ltd" ([2003] EWCA Civ 939, unreported) make it clear that parties may not resort to the courts for a decision as to costs alone, and that the courts will not regard the dispute as settled if the question of costs is still outstanding
590			_aIKA230506
650	2	4	_aHICKMAN V LAPTHORN AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aPROMAR INTERNATIONAL LTD V CLARKE
650	2	4	_aBCT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD V C BREWER AND SONS LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
700	1		_aFriston, M.
700	1		_aHughes, P.
700	1		_aMcGee, A.
700	1		_aSmith, M.
942			_n0
999			_c77033 _d77033