Key Facts
- •Mills & Reeve Trust Corporation Limited (Claimant) seeks court blessing for decisions regarding land held in the Red Land Trust.
- •Fourth and Fifth Defendants applied for transfer of proceedings to Leeds, a stay for mediation, extension of time to respond, and costs order.
- •Defendants are beneficiaries of the Peter Kevin Martin Will Trust and the Red Land Trust, with a long history of disputes.
- •Disputes concern the development and sale of land with development value, requiring collaboration with BMDC and Royds CA.
- •Claimant seeks blessing for a collaboration agreement, marketing the land, and accepting offers.
- •Defendants disagree on how to proceed, leading to the Claimant initiating proceedings.
- •Mediation was previously proposed but unsuccessful due to various reasons, including animosity between defendants.
Legal Principles
Hearings are generally public, but can be held in private if publicity would defeat the object of the hearing or damage confidentiality.
CPR 39.2(2) and (3)(c), f) and (g); CPR 64; White Book commentary at 39.2.2 on Re Timothy Edward Schuldham; Lewin on trusts (20th Edition) paragraphs 39-086 to 39-101; Chancery Guide 2022 paragraphs 3.31 and 3.32; Practice Guidance: interim non-disclosure orders [2012] 1 WLR 1003 paragraphs 9 to 12
Court can encourage mediation but generally cannot compel unwilling parties to mediate, due to the right of access to court and potential obstruction.
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002; Wright v Michael Wright (Supplies) Limited [2013] CP Rep 32; Lomax v Lomax (Practice Note) [2019] 1 WLR 6527; McParland & Partners Limited v Whitehead [2020] Bus LR 699; The Sky’s The Limit Transformations Ltd v Mirza [2022] EWHC 29 (TCC); DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd [2020] Costs LR 359; Chancery Guide 2022 Chapter 10 paragraphs 10.6 to 10.12; Civil Justice Council report “Compulsory ADR”; Lewin on Trusts (20th Edition) paragraphs 48-006 to 48-007; New Law Journal 8 October 2021; Roebuck Lecture (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) 8 June 2022
Outcomes
Hearing held in private due to commercially sensitive information.
Publicity would damage confidentiality and endanger the interests of beneficiaries; concerns were raised before and during proceedings.
Court does not have the power to order mandatory mediation.
Dicta in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust is binding; despite developments since Halsey, the court is bound by its clear views on the lawfulness of mandatory mediation; ordering mediation at this stage would likely be unsuccessful.
No permission to appeal granted regarding the mandatory mediation issue.
Appeal would have no real prospect of success; CJC report did not recommend mandatory mediation; per CPR 52.6.
No other mandatory ADR or stay ordered.
Significant animosity between defendants; long history of intractable disputes; proposed collaboration agreement is at an advanced stage; mediation would likely be ineffective at this late stage; further delays are unjustifiable.
Fourth and Fifth Defendants granted a short extension to respond to the claim by 4pm, 5 May 2023.
No stay of proceedings granted.