Home Information Cases Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd v Danovo Ltd

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd v Danovo Ltd

Summary

The First to Fifth Claimants were the freehold and head leasehold owners of County Hall, London.   The Sixth Claimant was underlessee of part of the first floor.   The Defendant (operator of the Saatchi Gallery) was sub-underlessee of part of the Sixth Claimant's premises.   Disputes arose as to the Defendant's rights in respect of various parts of the first floor and common areas of the County Hall.   The Claimants brought proceedings and sought summary judgment.   The Defendant counterclaimed.

Facts

The Defendant had sought to persuade the Claimants to agree to mediation, but without success.   In those circumstances, the Defendant applied to the court for an order for mediation, in a form based on the draft ADR order at Appendix 7 to the Commercial Court Guide, but providing specifically for mediation (as has been ordered by Arden J in the earlier case of Guinle v Kirreh; Kinstreet Ltd v Balmargo Corporation Ltd).

The Claimants opposed the application, asserting that the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order in the face of the Claimants opposition to it; the Claimant also argued that the court should refuse to make an order on discretionary grounds.

Court decides that jurisdiction exists to make compulsory mediation orders, drawing together and confirming earlier indications that such a power exists

Held

The court had jurisdiction to make an order for mediation, even in the face of the Claimants opposition; and it would exercise its discretion to do so.

Chancery Division
Blackburne J
Judgment date
5 December 2003
References

​[2003] EWHC 3006 (Ch); [2004] 1 WLR 2985 

Practice areas