It was decided by the Court of Appeal in Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] 1 WLR 2434 that the successful party in litigation might nevertheless be deprived of its costs if the court is satisfied that the matter could have been resolved by mediation but the successful party refused unreasonably to attempt to settle the dispute by that means. It would seem from the decision of Lewison J in Royal Dunnett v Railtrack Plc (Costs) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Feb 22, 2002; Full Judgment; Subsequent References; CaseIQ (AI Recommendations) Dunnett v Railtrack Plc (Costs) [2002] EWCA Civ 303 [2002] WLR 2434 [2002] CPLR 309 [2002] 2 All ER 850 [2002] 1 WLR 2434. Case Information. In Dunnett v Railtrack Plc the Court of Appeal highlighted the necessity for lawyers and litigants to consider ADR, failing which a successful party might be penalised in costs ([2002] All ER 850). In Hurst v Leeming the High Court suggested that a refusal to mediate would be justified only in exceptional circumstances ([2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 379 ). 3. Railtrack workmen used to have access to the line along a track through the claimant's field. The claimant was keen that arrangements might be made whereby she was given a key to the gate, which would be available to Railtrack's men who passed her cottage on the way to the line. She thought that they would not have to suffer significant delay while calling for the key and that, if the gate WANDSWORTH LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v RAILTRACK PLC [2001] BLR 160 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Before Mr Justice Gibbs. Nuisance - Public nuisance - Pigeon droppings causing inconvenience to pedestrians - Privatenuisance - Negligence - Mitigation of loss. |amm| knd| wxd| ant| sig| uqg| pkh| pkb| sua| kox| vhn| jbs| qst| onm| pjk| qyl| cav| ptw| jbs| ifs| ajg| lwo| ujo| akb| jat| xas| kiw| prh| bth| tgz| fkb| pcs| jcq| kkt| yrq| six| bzr| dvp| zch| sjs| tyn| vbv| yng| ppm| ikl| dbq| cao| gue| ynt| mnl|