MJS Projects v RPS Consulting

When Is It Reasonable to Refuse Mediation ?

Another case where refusing to mediate was not unreasonable

The TCC has handed down another helpful judgment for parties weighing up when, and on what terms, to engage in mediation.

In MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC), HHJ Kelly considered a costs argument made by the unsuccessful claimant who argued that the defendant’s repeated refusal to mediate justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event, and asked the court to make no order as to costs.

The judge disagreed.

The defendant had not refused ADR outright, the Judge found. It had asked, reasonably, for sight of the claimant’s expert report on a without prejudice basis before committing up to £50,000 to a mediation. It had raised workmanship issues for four years that the claimant never substantively addressed. It had engaged in Calderbank offers, counsel-to-counsel discussions, and proposed expert meetings. The final mediation proposal from the claimant came only weeks before trial, on terms that would likely have required the trial date to be vacated.

HHJ Kelly held that requiring meaningful engagement with the technical case before mediating was not unreasonable, and that mediation is not the only or preferred form of ADR (citing Halsey).

Key takeaways:
– A refusal to mediate is judged in context, not in isolation. The full ADR chronology matters.
– Asking for the other side’s expert evidence before mediating can be a legitimate position, particularly where the technical case has not been engaged with.
– Late mediation proposals on terms that threaten the trial date will not necessarily be held against the party that declines them.
– Engaging with other forms of ADR, commercial discussions, Calderbank offers, expert meetings, helps demonstrate reasonableness even where mediation itself is declined.

The result: the claimant paid the defendant’s costs on the standard basis, with an interim payment of £309,673.80 plus interest.

A useful reminder that documenting the reasons for declining mediation, and offering alternatives, remains the best protection against an adverse costs finding.

MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Services Limited [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC)

Full judgment: https://lnkd.in/ecurfhMg