Estate dispute - other side has applied to the Law Society to appoint an arbitrator

UncleMorpheus

Hi,

So I'm in a dispute situation over a will/estate with the other inheritor of the estate, and the other side has applied to the Law Society to appoint an arbitrator, via a "Appointment of an Arbitrator by the President Application Form" (annoyingly the form doesn't seem to have a code number).

Although I'm not against some sort of mediation in principle (and I'm not entirely sure that's what this is?), I'm not very happy about this, as I was not consulted, and simply informed by them that they'd submitted the form (with a copy also sent to me), and it's typical of the high-handedness of the other side, in my opinion.

As far as I was concerned, we were still in a process of negotiation, but the other side taking over a month to respond to my counter offer to resolve our dispute, which was only then given to me, at the same time as a copy of their application to the Law Society.

I'm of the opinion that, although this might end cheaper than litigation (I notice the Law Society themselves use the phrase "usually"!), it will still run up costs, and I can't help feel this is a tactic by the other side for me to agree on their terms, as they are better funded than me, and as such, is a form of financial blackmail. Indeed their society seemed to hint as much by telling me costs will now start rising rapidly.

Unfortunately, due to events that seem to go beyond farce, I'm without a solicitor to advise or assist me, at present, and I'm probably very short on time.

So, can appeal against this application and try to force the other side to keep negotiating without the need for this potentially very expensive resolution, and if I can, how do I do it, and how long do I have to submit some sort of appeal? And what can I appeal on, the fact that in my opinion we haven't completed our negotiations, or other methods of mediation have not been tried?

Thanks for any help.

MattMattMattUK

UncleMorpheus said:

Hi,

So I'm in a dispute situation over a will/estate with the other inheritor of the estate, and the other side has applied to the Law Society to appoint an arbitrator, via a "Appointment of an Arbitrator by the President Application Form" (annoyingly the form doesn't seem to have a code number).

Although I'm not against some sort of mediation in principle (and I'm not entirely sure that's what this is?), I'm not very happy about this, as I was not consulted, and simply informed by them that they'd submitted the form (with a copy also sent to me), and it's typical of the high-handedness of the other side, in my opinion.

As far as I was concerned, we were still in a process of negotiation, but the other side taking over a month to respond to my counter offer to resolve our dispute, which was only then given to me, at the same time as a copy of their application to the Law Society.

I'm of the opinion that, although this might end cheaper than litigation (I notice the Law Society themselves use the phrase "usually"!), it will still run up costs, and I can't help feel this is a tactic by the other side for me to agree on their terms, as they are better funded than me, and as such, is a form of financial blackmail. Indeed their society seemed to hint as much by telling me costs will now start rising rapidly.

Unfortunately, due to events that seem to go beyond farce, I'm without a solicitor to advise or assist me, at present, and I'm probably very short on time.

So, can appeal against this application and try to force the other side to keep negotiating without the need for this potentially very expensive resolution, and if I can, how do I do it, and how long do I have to submit some sort of appeal? And what can I appeal on, the fact that in my opinion we haven't completed our negotiations, or other methods of mediation have not been tried?

Thanks for any help.

You can never force another party to keep negotiating. They obviously feel that further attempts at negotiation are pointless and so feel the need for some outside intervention, so have chosen that route. Your alternative is likely to end up in court. 

The fees for Arbitration are clearly laid out below and they reason they say "usually" cheaper is because it usually is cheaper, of course someone spending a lot on legal advice vs self-representing in court would find arbitration more expensive, but for the vast majority court will be more expensive, potentially hugely so depending on the amount of money and the level of court and legal representation needed. 
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/individual-accreditations/appointing-an-arbitrator

If you take a cold hard look at the facts, rather than an emotional view, are you right, are they right, is the reality somewhere in the middle? 

tacpot12

Hopefully you will find mediation a useful process. A mediatior should work to ensure that neither party has an edge over the other (so they should stop any high-handed behaviour). They should help you understand where you have agreement and where you don't, and this can help the court as it means that only the areas where you don't agree need a judge to decide for you. 

The mediator can help you understand the other party's point of view, and vice versa. They can also consider other approaches, that you might not have considered before, 

MattMattMattUK

tacpot12 said:

Hopefully you will find mediation a useful process. A mediatior should work to ensure that neither party has an edge over the other (so they should stop any high-handed behaviour). They should help you understand where you have agreement and where you don't, and this can help the court as it means that only the areas where you don't agree need a judge to decide for you. 

The mediator can help you understand the other party's point of view, and vice versa. They can also consider other approaches, that you might not have considered before, 

Isn't Arbitration different to Mediation?

UncleMorpheus

tacpot12 said:

Hopefully you will find mediation a useful process. A mediatior should work to ensure that neither party has an edge over the other (so they should stop any high-handed behaviour). They should help you understand where you have agreement and where you don't, and this can help the court as it means that only the areas where you don't agree need a judge to decide for you. 

The mediator can help you understand the other party's point of view, and vice versa. They can also consider other approaches, that you might not have considered before, 

Thanks. Hopefully that's how it works. Hopefully it can also be arranged over the phone as well.

UncleMorpheus

MattMattMattUK said:

tacpot12 said:

Hopefully you will find mediation a useful process. A mediatior should work to ensure that neither party has an edge over the other (so they should stop any high-handed behaviour). They should help you understand where you have agreement and where you don't, and this can help the court as it means that only the areas where you don't agree need a judge to decide for you. 

The mediator can help you understand the other party's point of view, and vice versa. They can also consider other approaches, that you might not have considered before, 

Isn't Arbitration different to Mediation?

Well, that's just it, if it isn't I'd have been open to mediation before, instead of just having the other side's solicitor trying to bully me at every opportunity. A mediator might have set a different tone that could have smoothed our differences over. So then surely I then have an argument for that, first?

Grumpy_chap

MattMattMattUK said:

tacpot12 said:

Hopefully you will find mediation a useful process. A mediatior should work to ensure that neither party has an edge over the other (so they should stop any high-handed behaviour). They should help you understand where you have agreement and where you don't, and this can help the court as it means that only the areas where you don't agree need a judge to decide for you. 

The mediator can help you understand the other party's point of view, and vice versa. They can also consider other approaches, that you might not have considered before, 

Isn't Arbitration different to Mediation?

AIUI, Arbitration is Mediation by a suitably qualified professional and usually registered member of an appropriate arbitration body.
Whereas anyone can act as a Mediator.

Alphatauri

As I understand it mediation is where the two parties come to an agreement via negotiation. Arbitration is where an independent person reviews each parties arguments and decides on the outcome. 

What you will need is to have all your points of difference and your evidence to back up your position. You also need to consider the other parties position and have evidence why it is not fair/reasonable. 

TripleH

Put any points down bullet points straight to the fact initially. No disrespect but when people add emotions explaining x,y, z a third party can loose interest.

That doesn't mean you can't have a document explaining why you are right in each point etc.

If you have a calculation outlining why you have split how you have, include that.

The focus is on what the will says, and what can be proven.

UncleMorpheus

Alphatauri said:

As I understand it mediation is where the two parties come to an agreement via negotiation. Arbitration is where an independent person reviews each parties arguments and decides on the outcome. 

What you will need is to have all your points of difference and your evidence to back up your position. You also need to consider the other parties position and have evidence why it is not fair/reasonable. 

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification.

So surely I have to actively agree to this process? As stated, the other side just applied without even consulting me, first.

I seem to recall from hearing news stories on the TV about workers disputes that, they say things along the lines of "the union and management have agreed to arbitration."

So do you know, do I wait for the Lay Society to contact me to ask that I agree to the process, or am I assumed to be agreeing to the process if don't appeal in some way/write to them to refuse, in a given time?

Thanks.

MobileSaver

UncleMorpheus said:

So I'm in a dispute situation over a will/estate with the other inheritor of the estate, ... I'm of the opinion that, although this might end cheaper than litigation it will still run up costs,

My view is that if you have been the reasonable one in negotiations so far and the outcome of any arbitration/mediation is substantively what you were proposing anyway then the other side should be liable for the additional costs.

Of course if the arbitration/mediation finds you were being unreasonable and proposes a lesser amount than you were demanding then the other side were clearly correct to go for a more formal approach and to potentially make you liable for the additional costs.

So, fundamentally, would an impartial observer (such as a judge or arbitrator) be likely to find in your favour? If you are not confident they would then it may be prudent to propose a more reasonable offer before costs start to mount up...