Achieving a balance
- Jun 29
- 5 min read
Words by Jamie Crocker
A practical approach to disputes that doesnt always need litigation
At Stutt Associates, they want to resolve things. As the only law firm in Cornwall focusing exclusively on disputes, that is what the partnership of Lisa Haywood and Lee Stutt does. Their goal is to find a solution to a dispute that works for their client, using every tool available, to ensure clients are protected, advocated for and ultimately receive a result that represents the most commercial outcome available. They won’t shy away from litigation: sometimes it can’t be avoided. What works best for a client, though, is often certainty, which litigation won’t give. Strategy is a huge part of this. To settle is not weak; it is practical. If a cheaper, quicker and more certain outcome can be achieved, then that should be taken instead of months or years of stress over an unknown result and mounting costs. Sometimes it’s not possible, but that will not stop them from trying. They sometimes nail it with one letter that causes the other party to either roll over or settle – “that is always satisfying”. It is rare, though.
Managing the balance between professional empathy and emotional entanglement can be tough. Stutt Associates’ lawyers genuinely care about their clients. It is their job to set expectations and guide them through the process, with support tailored to each client’s risk appetite and personality. They take time to listen and assess where each client sits before agreeing on the service level and strategy, especially when it comes to home ownership and wills and estate disputes, which are among the most emotionally charged, with potential for nuclear fallout. Striking a balance is key, especially in Cornwall, which has a distinct sense of identity and is, in some ways, unique when it comes to the world of litigation. Mundic, Cornish hedges, coastal paths, common land, radon gas and mining searches are all things that can catch out the unwary. Lisa and Lee have had cases where advisors have missed things, leading to clients’ properties being worth less than they paid. It can be a real problem if the right protections aren’t put in place. Cornish hedges in particular can be tricky. The boundaries can be in a different position based on whether historic conveyances state where the boundary is, if the hedge is retaining, whether it is a party wall and all sorts of other factors!
For Lisa and Lee it is almost always worth trying mediation as a way of resolving a dispute. It’s a brilliant way for parties to take control of the outcome, confronting the guts of the issue and working to solve it. Mediators act as neutral facilitators, so they don’t make a decision and have no skin in the game. Their role is to explore the possibility of a deal between the parties where they are both in the driving seat, and able to achieve an outcome that suits them both based on their actual needs, which are not always the same as what they might ask a Court to order. Usually, a mediation takes a day and is often conducted on Zoom. The parties should spend the day focusing on a pragmatic outcome that underlines the dispute, which will allow them to move on. There are limited situations where mediation isn’t appropriate. The Courts expect the parties to try to resolve things without tying up court resources. If the parties don’t try hard enough, the Court can step in and force them to mediate, so beware anyone trying to rely on a flimsy excuse.
On the question of whether there is a risk that over-reliance on mediation allows stronger parties to pressure weaker ones into “agreement” rather than justice, Lee’s answer is firmly not on their watch. As an accredited mediator himself, he knows that mediation is not designed for pressure; there should be no obligation on either party to accept anything they do not want, and they can walk away at any time if it feels like bullying. Parties’ perceptions of their prospects naturally come into play and will influence settlement, but it is always a two-way street, and no case is so certain that one side can claim all the cards and dictate the outcome.
The hardest truth Lisa and Lee routinely have to deal with at the start of a dispute is managing clients’ expectations on time and cost. Litigation is often longer and more expensive than first predicted; there are curveballs, and nothing can be guaranteed. They frequently have to give a reality check where clients expect damages the Court would not award – ‘injury to feelings’, for example – or on costs recovery, where recovering around 70% would be a good outcome, but is never guaranteed.
There are also difficult conversations about the commerciality of pursuing a claim or a party, where the result may amount to a pyrrhic victory or where the other side is not good for recovery. They want clients to understand the financial and commercial realities of entering a dispute. In property matters, they often suggest a simpler first step: take a pack of biscuits next door and try to resolve it before reaching for solicitors. If that fails, they can step in at any point, though it is always regrettable when the outcome means someone has to move.
According to Lisa, the most difficult thing for clients to understand when instructing her is often costs, with many prospective clients initially anxious about fees and unsure how costs actually work Stutt Associates simplifies this and is transparent from the outset, fixing or staging costs where possible to reduce stress and improve accessibility, recognising that high costs can also block settlement because no one wants a ‘win’ that still leaves them footing the bill.
Whether modern legal and social cultures make a genuine apology harder or strategically difficult to implement, it’s a paradox that the British will apologise for almost anything in passing, yet resist it when it might actually defuse a dispute. An apology, whether sincere or instinctive, often works wonders and does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing, only an acknowledgement of another person’s feelings, something that is increasingly needed. A Court cannot order an apology, but in many cases that is precisely what is required, making settlement immediately more attractive.
Stopping land and property disputes from becoming battles of sentiment rather than law, the practicality of spending money often has a sobering effect on those with a deep emotional tie to property, especially where land has been held within families for generations. Lisa and Lee’s role is not to encourage sentimentality, but to focus on practical outcomes and the strategies needed to achieve them, with mediation proving particularly powerful as it allows emotional issues to be aired while still working towards a resolution that lets people move on.
Nothing much surprises Lisa and Lee anymore when it comes to human behaviour. The frustration is how quickly minor issues escalate into entrenched disputes where people end up gambling their home over something as small as six inches of useless garden, but it is equally rewarding when two parties who can no longer speak to each other are brought back to an agreement that allows life to continue, and that is when they feel they are doing something right.
