In response to Edward Foster’s letter, we have had a similar situation with regard to alternative dispute resolution. A, B and C were in partnership. A left the partnership and signed a termination agreement. B and C subsequently incurred a liability and asked A to contribute what they considered was his one-third share. A refused, on the basis that the termination agreement made no provision for this. B and C sued A and A put in a defence.

We advised A that this was a straightforward small-claims action which would take up no more than an hour of the court’s time.

However, the district judge took a different view. He considered that the case was suitable for mediation. On our advice, A challenged this order. The district judge responded that this was a business dispute suitable for mediation. We have now had to advise A with regard to the costs implications if he decides to reject mediation.

If A had accepted liability, but simply refused to pay the amount claimed, then we would accept that mediation would be an entirely sensible method of resolving the issue. But we fail to understand how mediation can resolve a dispute which involves interpretation of the agreement terminating the former partnership.

A has informed us that, even if he attended mediation, he would not be prepared to make any payment to his former partners. In those circumstances mediation would fail, the matter would be referred back to the court, and there would be a small-claims hearing lasting about an hour. Mediation itself would take up approximately half a day of chargeable time for these three professionals. What exactly is the point of that?

C J A Cope, Cope’s, Hammetts; Kings Nympton, Devon