Mediation, Costs and Family Property Disputes: What the Court Just Decided in Grijns v Grijns (Nov 2025)
When families fall out about property, emotions run high and legal costs can spiral. A recent High Court decision shows how judges look at mediation and litigation conduct when deciding who pays the bill — and why running an aggressive case can backfire badly.
What happened
A son brought a claim to a valuable London property. The court dismissed his claims in full and found his mother was the sole owner. On costs, the judge ordered the son to pay the family’s costs on the indemnity basis (a tougher, more expensive basis of assessment) because his case and tactics were outside the norm.
Why the court took a strict line on costs
- Unrealistic case theory. The claim was found to be very weak and inconsistent with the documents.
- Pressure tactics. Allegations (like capacity) were floated but never pursued with evidence; a late contempt application was issued and then not taken forward. The court saw these as pressure rather than genuine issues.
- “Win” means costs. A small, peripheral success (tweaking an accounting issue) didn’t dent the overall outcome: the defendants clearly “won”, so costs followed the event.
What the judge said about mediation
- No unreasonable refusal by the winners. The defendants had actually suggested mediation early.
- Unreasonable conditions can derail ADR. The claimant tried to exclude key family members who were parties/attorneys — the court called that approach high-handed.
- Timing matters. Disclosure on both sides ran late, so there was no realistic “mediation window” before trial. In those circumstances the court refused to penalise the successful parties for not mediating.
What about settlement offers?
The claimant made several “without prejudice save as to costs” offers demanding a large slice of sale proceeds. Given he ultimately lost outright, the judge held the defendants were not obliged to negotiate on unrealistic figures. Courts look at how the offer compares to the result; if the winner does much better at trial than the offer, there’s usually no costs penalty for declining it.
Practical takeaways for families (and advisers)
- Put mediation on the table early — and respond. Silence to a serious invite can be held unreasonable. Even if timing isn’t right, say why and suggest when.
- Invite the right people. If siblings are parties or hold Powers of Attorney, they generally must be in the room (or at least available). Trying to exclude them will likely be criticised.
- Create ADR space in the timetable. If you know disclosure will be heavy (years of emails/texts), plan a post-disclosure mediation window.
- Reality-check offers. Pitch proposals within a plausible outcomes range. Over-ambitious percentages can undermine your costs position later.
- Avoid pressure-only tactics. Don’t raise capacity/committal threats you won’t evidence or pursue. It can tip you into indemnity costs.
Bottom line: In family property rows, credible mediation and sensible offers protect relationships — and protect your costs position. If a dispute is brewing, involve a neutral mediator early and structure the process properly.
If you’d like to discuss a private, time-boxed mediation for a family property dispute, get in touch — we can design a process that brings the right people into the room at the right time, with disclosure staged to make the conversation meaningful.