Reed Executive v Reed Business Information: mediation refusal and settlement talks stay off limits on costs
Reed ExecutivevReed Business Information
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 14 July 2004
- Citation
- [2004] EWCA Civ 887
Without-prejudice settlement talks usually stay private even when you're arguing about who pays costs.
Reed Executive and Reed Business Information couldn't agree how costs should be split after their trademark and passing off fight. The Court of Appeal ruled that private settlement talks stay off limits and that refusing a late offer to mediate wasn't unreasonable.
What happened
This case followed the Court of Appeal's main ruling in the long-running trademark and passing off dispute between the two Reed businesses. With the main issues decided, the parties still couldn't agree the detail of the final order: how any declarations would be worded, what interest rate would apply to a £350,000 interim costs payment, and, most contentiously, who would pay the costs of the trial and the appeal. Reed Executive argued that Reed Business Information had acted unreasonably by refusing to mediate the dispute, and asked the court to order disclosure of the without-prejudice settlement talks between the parties to prove that point. Reed Business Information resisted, saying its conduct had been reasonable throughout.
What did the court decide in Reed Executive v Reed Business Information?
The court held that the long-standing rule protecting without-prejudice negotiations from being used to decide costs remained good law, even after the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust on mediation. That meant the court had no power to order disclosure of the detail of what passed between the parties during settlement talks. Looking only at what had happened openly, the court found that Reed Business Information's refusal to mediate was not unreasonable, given how late the proposal came and that Reed Business Information reasonably believed it had a strong appeal. So the refusal didn't count against it on costs. Smaller points, the wording of the declaration and the interest rate on the interim payment, were resolved, but the overall split of costs was left for a further hearing once the parties put in fresh submissions.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that trying to use settlement talks as ammunition on costs is unlikely to work. The court treated the privacy of those talks as more important than letting one side prove the other behaved badly.
- If you want to argue the other side unreasonably refused mediation, timing matters. A proposal made late in the process, especially after one side already looks likely to win, is harder to use against them.
- Settling costs disputes often takes as long as the main case. Build that into your budget and timeline when litigation reaches the appeal stage.
Things to be aware of
- This ruling only deals with costs and the form of the order. It doesn't revisit who won the underlying trademark and passing off dispute.
- The protection for without-prejudice talks isn't absolute in every context, but this case confirms it still applies when arguing about costs after Halsey.
- A refusal to mediate being 'not unreasonable' is fact specific. A different timing or a weaker case on appeal could lead to a different result.
The businesses involved
Reed Executive Plc
Recruitment agency group registered in England since 1986 (Companies House: Reed Executive Limited, no. 02061422), still active, holding two UK trademarks on the UK trademark register covering recruitment services.
- Companies House
- 02061422 Active
- Incorporated
- October 1986
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Other professional, scientific and technical activities n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 2
Reed Business Information Ltd
Publisher of business and trade information, including online recruitment listings, operating under the Reed Elsevier group at the time of the dispute.
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2004] EWCA Civ 887 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
