Refusing to Mediate: Court Reprimands Defendant in Appiah v Leeds City Council
By Peter Causton | Civil & Commercial Mediator | June 2025
In a significant judgment handed down by the High Court on 19 June 2025 in Appiah & Anor v Leeds City Council & Anor [2025] EWHC 1537 (KB), the court criticised a defendant public authority for failing to comply with a clear order relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The case serves as a stark reminder of the growing judicial expectation that parties will not only consider mediation but actively engage with it — or give cogent reasons for not doing so.
The Background: A Dispute in Delay
The claimants (Cs) had proposed mediation to the second defendant (D2), Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, in March 2024, pursuant to an order made by Master Stevens. The order explicitly required any party not engaging in a proposed ADR process to serve a witness statement explaining why — within 21 days of the proposal.
The claimants argued that D2 failed to engage with this requirement and had neither agreed to mediate nor provided the required explanatory statement. D2 contended that they had not refused mediation outright, but merely sought to defer engagement until they had reviewed the claimants’ expert evidence, which they believed was necessary to make the mediation effective.
The Correspondence Trail: A Missed Opportunity
A closer look at the parties’ correspondence reveals the timeline:
• On 7 May 2024, the claimants wrote proposing ADR and warning of the requirement to file a witness statement if mediation was not pursued.
• On 3 June 2024, D2’s solicitors replied, stating they were prepared to engage in ADR, but emphasised the need to first see the claimants’ expert evidence.
• On 4 June 2024, the claimants clarified that they were proposing mediation as the form of ADR.
After this point, no further correspondence was exchanged regarding ADR.
The Judgment: A Technical but Crucial Breach
Mrs Justice Thornton found in favour of the claimants on the ADR point. Importantly, the court clarified that:
“The order is clear that any party not engaging in the ADR proposed by the other side within 21 days… must provide a witness statement. It does not state that any party refusing to engage… must provide a witness statement.”
By failing to engage in mediation within 21 days of the claimants’ clarified proposal (4 June 2024), and by failing to serve a witness statement explaining why, D2 breached the terms of Master Stevens’ order.
Although D2 had expressed willingness to mediate eventually, the court concluded that this was not enough. The obligation was procedural and mandatory. As such, D2 was ordered to belatedly comply and provide a witness statement explaining its position.
Judicial Encouragement of ADR
Mrs Justice Thornton went further, urging the parties to:
“…review paragraph 2 of the Master’s order (including the requirement to consider settling this litigation by any means of ADR at all stages), and to ensure that they comply with it.”
The court also vacated the imminent trial date, citing a lack of readiness on both sides, and indicated that further preparation — including reconsideration of mediation — would be in line with the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Implications: Compliance With ADR Orders Is Not Optional
This decision underscores several key messages for litigants and practitioners:
• Court orders about ADR must be followed to the letter. Parties cannot evade obligations by expressing future willingness or by imposing unilateral preconditions (such as receiving expert evidence first).
• Silence or delay is not an option. Where there is non-engagement with a proposed ADR process, a timely and properly reasoned witness statement must be served.
• Mediation is not a procedural nicety. The judiciary increasingly expects ADR — especially mediation — to be seriously pursued, particularly in claims involving public bodies.
Conclusion: The Costs of Avoiding Mediation
As the Civil Justice Council and senior judges continue to promote ADR, this case illustrates the practical and procedural consequences of ignoring mediation opportunities or court directions. Defendants — especially public authorities — are now on notice: delay or half-hearted engagement with ADR may be treated as non-compliance, with all the procedural and potential cost consequences that entails.
The message is clear — when a party proposes mediation, the response must be prompt, meaningful, and procedurally sound. A failure to engage properly could not only prejudice your case but lead to judicial reprimand, wasted costs, and a delayed resolution that might otherwise have been amicably achieved.