The Cost-Saving Benefits of ADR in Professional Negligence Cases
The recent decision in Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (a firm) [2025] EWHC 602 highlights the significant costs associated with professional negligence litigation and raises important considerations regarding the role of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in reducing expenses. While the court ultimately declined to order a split trial in this case, the judgment provides a useful opportunity to examine how ADR can be an effective tool for saving costs in complex professional negligence disputes.
The High Costs of Litigation
The Soroka case illustrates just how costly professional negligence cases can be. The claimant estimated that the first trial (on breach and duty) alone would cost approximately £371,000, a figure the judge considered to be an underestimate. The total estimated costs for the full trial were around £2 million, with no clear breakdown provided. Even the preliminary application process had already incurred significant expenses, with two counsels’ brief fees alone amounting to £61,000.
Such high costs are not unusual in professional negligence disputes, where extensive disclosure, expert evidence, and lengthy trials contribute to escalating legal fees. The reality is that many professional negligence cases are financially draining for both claimants and defendants, making ADR an attractive option for parties seeking to avoid protracted litigation.
The Superyacht Dispute
A central issue in the Soroka case was the claimant’s allegation that her former solicitors had been negligent in failing to advise her to take enforcement action against a luxury superyacht, Luna, said to be worth approximately $200 million. The yacht, allegedly beneficially owned by her ex-husband, was docked in Miami in early 2017, and the claimant argued that her legal team should have advised her to pursue enforcement of her financial remedy order against it at that time. The solicitors, however, contended that they had not been instructed to pursue the yacht and that the claimant had previously indicated she was not interested in impounding it. This dispute added further complexity to the case, as it required an assessment of breach, causation, and loss—elements that could have been explored and potentially resolved through ADR rather than expensive litigation.
The Role of ADR in Reducing Costs
ADR, including mediation and arbitration, offers several cost-saving benefits:
1. Avoiding Lengthy Court Proceedings
One of the most significant advantages of ADR is the potential to resolve disputes before reaching trial. The Soroka case involved complex legal and factual issues, particularly around causation and loss, which could have been addressed through mediation rather than a full trial. A well-structured mediation could have facilitated discussions between the parties, potentially leading to a settlement without the need for costly court proceedings.
2. Reducing Legal Fees
Court proceedings involve high legal fees, particularly when dealing with experienced legal teams, as seen in Soroka. ADR allows parties to avoid many of these costs by engaging in a more streamlined process. Mediation, for instance, can often be completed in a matter of days rather than months or years, significantly reducing legal fees.
3. Minimizing Expert and Witness Costs
Professional negligence cases often require expert witnesses and extensive documentary evidence. In Soroka, the judge expressed concerns about witnesses potentially having to give evidence twice if a split trial were ordered. ADR can mitigate these costs by enabling the parties to present their cases in a less formal setting, avoiding the need for multiple rounds of expert reports and testimony.
4. Encouraging Early Settlement
The court noted that the claimant had indicated a willingness to settle early in the proceedings, but the defendant had not yet engaged in ADR. In many cases, early engagement in ADR can facilitate negotiations and encourage a resolution before significant costs are incurred. Delaying ADR, as seen in Soroka, often leads to increased legal fees and a more entrenched dispute.
5. Flexibility and Confidentiality
Unlike court proceedings, ADR provides flexibility in structuring negotiations and allows parties to keep discussions confidential. This can be particularly valuable in professional negligence cases, where reputational concerns may play a role in a party’s willingness to settle.
The Importance of Timing in ADR
One of the key lessons from Soroka is the importance of engaging in ADR at the right time. The judge in this case found that delaying consideration of causation and loss would hinder rather than promote settlement. This highlights the need for parties to assess ADR options early in the litigation process and to ensure that they have sufficient information to engage in meaningful discussions.
Conclusion
The Soroka case serves as a reminder of the enormous costs associated with professional negligence litigation and the potential for ADR to provide a more cost-effective resolution. While the court declined to order a split trial as a means of encouraging ADR, the case underscores the importance of early and proactive engagement in settlement discussions. Parties involved in professional negligence disputes should seriously consider ADR as a strategy to reduce costs, expedite resolution, and achieve a fair outcome without the financial burden of lengthy litigation.