Merits of the Case
The fact that a party unreasonably believes that his case is watertight is no justification for refusing mediation. But the fact that a party reasonably believes that he has a watertight case may well be sufficient justification for a refusal to mediate. Hurst v Leeming is incorrect in suggesting the contrary. The courts should be aware that large organisations, especially public bodies, are vulnerable to pressure from claimants, who, having weak cases, invite mediation as a tactical ploy.
|
