Case Study: Multi-Party Claims, Mixed Clin Neg & Accident Claims

by Trust ADR

2 min read

Jun 17, 2026, 1:05:41 PM

The Claimant brought a claim for damages resulting from a long delay in diagnosing an unstable fracture to his spine which had occurred as a result of an accident at work. Before the diagnosis had been made, he had been seen by two successive NHS Trusts and a senior surgeon. He had also developed a serious infection in his spine which (it was agreed) was not attributable to any delay in diagnosis.
Both his employers and the two Trusts admitted liability to some degree but subject to allegations of contributory negligence.
The mediation therefore involved 5 distinct parties. A willingness to settle existed at the outset but no individual party was prepared to make proposals.
The task of the mediator in this case was to use the confidentiality of the mediation to visit all the parties individually in order to (a) encourage the Claimant to share their expectations with the mediator on a provisional and confidential basis and (b) construct provisional indications of willingness from the Defendants to contribute to a common offer to the Claimant.
The second element of this task was the most difficult. In order to gain momentum only a modest offer was constructed initially which might well, in a conventional Round Table Meeting, have resulted in a breakdown in discussions. However the Claimant was encouraged to respond constructively because it was apparent to the mediator that although the public stance of each Defendant group was resistant to making higher offers, each group separately and privately accepted and maintained that the Claimant would obtain a much higher award, that it should be borne by the other Defendants, but that there were substantial risks that in the absence of settlement.
What appeared outwardly to be deadlock was therefore simply a problem of nudging each Defendant to consider a bigger contribution on condition that others did likewise. This process had to be repeated several times during which the Claimant might well have walked away. However, it was apparent to the mediator at each stage that one Defendant was prepared to go further to settle the matter than the others. Without indicating this to the Claimant or promising a higher offer the mediator was able to maintain encouragement to the Claimant to persist in negotiation and to be “brave enough” to disclose directly to the Defendants his realistic settlement expectations - it being clear to the mediator but not to any of the parties that the real gap between those expectations and what at least one Defendant recognised to be the zone of settlement was not great.
Disclosure of his settlement figure by the Claimant was something which his advisers were reluctant to do but, having done so, it then provoked a more constructive reaction from the Defendants who could then see that settlement was possible and that the differences between them over apportionment were outweighed by the advantages of doing a deal.
Once the Defendants parties had begun working together, they seemed to be able to grasp more clearly that compromise amongst each other was worthwhile in order to obtain an overall settlement – which was then achieved at a level which all parties appeared to view as being satisfactory.

Mediation

Evaluation

Arbitration

Support For Lawyers

Case Study: Multi-Party Claims, Mixed Clin Neg & Accident Claims

Subscribe by email

You May Also Like

Case Study: A Fatal Claim

Case Study: Claim Arising From Complicated Surgical Procedure

Case Study: What The Claimant Really Wanted To Say

Get Email Notifications