The Judge said the following:-
“When people fall out, feelings often run high. Where this gives rise to disputes that they are unable to resolve without resorting to litigation, the court must grapple with the issues raised. This is often regrettable, and, in my judgment, is particularly unfortunate in the present case. I consider that, with a reasonable amount of commercial common sense and pragmatic give and take, the parties could and should have been able to reduce the issues in these proceedings, even if not to resolve them completely. I am not able to form concluded views, not least because matters of quantum are not before me, and instead will be left over to be determined at another hearing. But I strongly suspect that, at least in some instances, the costs, stress and delay involved in litigating points in this case to the bitter end are disproportionate to the importance of what is at stake”.
It is fair to say that this comment can be applied to all litigation. Rarely do you ever come across anyone in a dispute who is of the view that talking is a waste of time. Of course litigation may follow if the party is so obnoxious as to warrant a claim. However these are few and far between and we always recommend that a two stage approach (we call it the dual carriageway approach) is adopted at once.
The dual carriageway approach means that on the one side of the carriageway you can be as litigous and agressive as you feel necessary. Whilst at the same time open up the other side of the road and start without prejudice discussions. This two stage approach almost always works. It will save you a fortune. Compromise!