The Grenfell Tower litigation: early mediation, disclosure, and a pragmatic approach to costs
A short procedural ruling in the Grenfell Tower litigation provides a careful illustration of how the courts continue to encourage sensible engagement with mediation, even in complex, high-stakes proceedings involving alleged product defects and multiple parties.
In a decision dated 11 December 2025, Mrs Justice Jefford DBE and Senior Master Cook considered a discrete application for early disclosure arising out of the ongoing civil claims connected to the Grenfell Tower fire.
The context: alleged defect and pleaded causation
The claimants have now pleaded a positive case as to the probable cause of the fire, said to have originated in a fridge freezer manufactured by Beko. While the Grenfell Tower Inquiry identified the fridge as the point of origin, it did not make findings as to the precise cause of the fire within the appliance.
Inspection of the fridge itself is no longer possible. The claimants therefore sought early disclosure of inspection notes and photographs taken by experts instructed by the Beko defendants, on the basis that contemporaneous material might assist in establishing causation.
Those materials were accepted to be within the defendants’ control and, subject to privilege, would be disclosed in due course as part of the ordinary disclosure process.
Why early disclosure was sought
Importantly, the court accepted that the application was not speculative or tactical, but was driven by a wish to explore early mediation before full disclosure.
A significant number of defendants supported the proposal. The claimants’ position was that meaningful mediation would be difficult without access to the contemporaneous inspection material, given the centrality of causation to the pleaded case.
The court acknowledged that this was a legitimate case-management objective. However, because there was no other procedural route to obtain the material at that stage, a separate application for early disclosure was required.
Why the application was refused
The court refused the application for early disclosure, for two principal reasons:
1. Lack of compelling necessity
The inspection report already disclosed identified possible causes but did not determine the actual cause of the fire. The court was not persuaded that underlying notes would materially advance that position.
Imminence of ordinary disclosure
The notes would, in any event, be disclosed later in the proceedings. Once the prospect of early mediation receded, the justification for early disclosure also fell away.
The court made clear that the refusal was not a criticism of the claimants’ conduct, nor of the mediation proposal itself.
Costs: mediation matters
The more striking aspect of the ruling concerns costs.
Beko sought the costs of the application, arguing-correctly in procedural terms-that they were the successful party and that the application had generated discrete, identifiable costs.
The court accepted that if the application were viewed in isolation, that submission would be strong.
However, the court declined to make a costs order, holding that the application should not be viewed in isolation.
Beko sought the costs of the application, arguing-correctly in procedural terms-that they were the successful party and that the application had generated discrete, identifiable costs.
The court accepted that if the application were viewed in isolation, that submission would be strong.
However, the court declined to make a costs order, holding that the application should not be viewed in isolation. It was part of a broader strategy aimed at achieving an early but effective mediation, which the court itself recognised as desirable case management in principle, even though it ultimately concluded that early mediation would not, at that stage, be effective.
The judges emphasised that they had reached that conclusion with some reluctance.
In those circumstances, the costs of the early disclosure application were treated as part of the overall preparation for mediation and case management, rather than as a failed or unreasonable interlocutory skirmish warranting a costs sanction.
What this tells us about mediation in complex litigation
This ruling reinforces several important points:
- Early mediation remains encouraged, even in technically complex, multi-party litigation involving allegations of defective products.
- Parties will not necessarily be penalised in costs for taking reasonable procedural steps aimed at facilitating mediation, even if those steps ultimately prove unsuccesstul.
- The court will look at why an application was made, not merely whether it succeeded.
- Costs decisions continue to reflect a pragmatic,proportionate approach aligned with the overriding objective.
- In short, the decision shows a court supportive of constructive ADR engagement, careful not to discourage parties from exploring mediation by treating every unsuccessful preparatory application as a costs battleground.
- In litigation of this scale and sensitivity, that is a notable-and sensible-signal.