Mediation in rural disputes: practical lessons from recent case law

For those dealing with rural property and agricultural and family business disputes, mediation is often a key procedural and strategic consideration. It can provide a practical route to resolving issues where the dispute involves not only legal rights, but also ongoing business relationships, family dynamics and the future management of land or farming assets. 

That is particularly important in disputes involving farming families, landed estates, succession planning, tenancies and rural businesses, where the legal issues often sit alongside long-standing personal, commercial and practical relationships. 

Why mediation deserves renewed focus 

A decision earlier this year, Matthew John Fisher & Ors v William Edward Fisher [2026] EWHC 1508 (Ch), has prompted us to reflect again on how the courts approach parties who refuse, ignore or fail to properly engage with mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. 

The case concerned the estate of Myrtle Joyce Fisher, who died in 2017. Her son, William Edward Fisher, had been appointed as one of the executors and trustees. Some of the beneficiaries later issued proceedings seeking his removal and the appointment of an independent administrator. The court ultimately had to deal with a range of issues arising from the administration of the estate, including expenditure on estate property, occupation of estate property and claims for reimbursement. 

The practical warning from the case 

The factual issues in Fisher are not the main focus here. The point of wider practical significance is the court’s approach to William’s litigation conduct, including his repeated refusal to engage with mediation and his wider failure to engage properly with the process. 

That wider conduct mattered. The court was not simply punishing a party for declining one mediation invitation. It looked at the overall way in which the litigation had been conducted. Against that background, the refusal to mediate became an important part of the court’s assessment of whether the case had been conducted outside the norm. 

The result was costly. William was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs on the indemnity basis, with £50,000 payable on account within 28 days. That is the practical lesson: refusing to mediate may not automatically lead to indemnity costs, but it can be a powerful factor when combined with other unreasonable conduct. 

Why this matters in practice 

The courts have increasingly emphasised that parties are expected to consider ADR seriously and at appropriate stages. A party may still have legitimate reasons for saying that mediation is premature, unsuitable or unlikely to assist, but those reasons need to be thought through, recorded and kept under review. 

What is dangerous is silence, blanket refusal or a response that simply says the other side’s case is hopeless. In many disputes, particularly the disputes we routinely deal with in the Agriculture and Estates team, the parties’ positions may be firmly held and emotionally charged. That does not relieve them of the obligation to engage sensibly with the process. 

Practical lessons for parties and advisers 

Recent case law reinforces some simple, but important, practical guidance. 

• Do not ignore an invitation to mediate. Respond promptly and constructively. 

• If mediation is said to be premature, explain why and identify what needs to happen before it can sensibly take place. 

• Keep ADR under review as the evidence, disclosure and pleadings develop. 

• Make sure any refusal is reasoned, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective. 

• Remember that the court will look at the whole course of conduct, not one letter in isolation. 

For farming families and other family businesses, the point is especially important. Litigation can resolve legal issues, but it rarely repairs relationships or protects the practical working arrangements that family businesses need. Mediation gives parties a confidential setting in which to discuss commercial, personal and succession issues together, with greater flexibility than the court can offer. 

The point is not that every rural dispute must settle. It is that parties must be able to show that they approached ADR properly, considered mediation at appropriate stages and responded constructively when the issue was raised. 

For more information about our mediation and agricultural litigation expertise please contact Edward Venmore and Danielle Spalding.