RICS Dispute Resolution Service Blog

Conflicts of interest and social networking

A building contractor once complained to me about an RICS appointed arbitrator, who he said had a conflict of interest.

It seems the arbitrator called a meeting and one party came represented by a solicitor, while the other party, (the building contractor) came without any professional representation.

As he walked into the meeting room the arbitrator, who shall remain nameless, recognised the solicitor as someone who represented another party in a completely unrelated arbitration about 6 months before. As quick as you like, he said to the solicitor "Hi John, how's things with you"?

The fact is the arbitrator only knew the solicitor professionally. I was subsequently reassured by the arbitrator that there was no relationship between him and the solicitor other than a professional one. He said they never communicated or met in a social context, and I found no evidence of a relationship that would give rise to a perception that the arbitrator would be biased in favour of the solicitor. I told the arbitrator that he would probably avoid similar complaints in the future if he was less familiar and referred to the solicitor, and other people he knew professionally, as "Mr." when speaking within the confines of an arbitration meeting.

This happened over 10 years ago, and the thing is, if the arbitrator's relationship with the solicitor was more than professional, it would probably have been very difficult to prove. But 10 years ago we didn't have Facebook, Twitter or Linked In.

I came across an article via Linked In this morning, which comments on new circumstances that might give rise to potential challenges to arbitrators, based on conflicts of interest arising out of social networking. The essence of the argument is that social media creates relationships which are very visible and sites like Facebook leave a public record which others can easily view. The author concludes that there should be guidelines which determine which virtual “relationships” require disclosure, waiver, or disqualification. He also questions whether an arbitrator’s use of social media sites should be discoverable by the parties.

I put this to former President of RICS, Graham Chase. He recently Chaired the RICS Working Party on Conflicts of Interest in dispute resolution, and developed a comprehensive guidance note on the subject. Graham's view (which I agree with) is that relationships, no matter how they are formed, should be disclosed under the best practice guidelines with social media simply supplying the evidence of a fact. He went on to explain that relationships developed on social media sites were not to be ignored in this context. At the end of the day, says Graham “ they are a physical manifestation of what actually is happening. Nothing more, nothing less

Dispute Board launch event

On Tuesday 01 May, RICS will launch its International Dispute Board Training and Accreditation Programme.

This is a new scheme which will provide chartered surveyors and other professionals with an opportunity to qualify as a member of the RICS Dispute Board Register.

This evening event is free to attend and will be at RICS HQ in Parlaiment Square London (17:30 start).

Introductions from Bob Davis, Chair of RICS Dispute Board Working Party, will be followed by our Key note speaker Mr Justice Ramsey QC, who is the former Head of the Technology and Construction Court.

RICS President, See Lian Ong will be there and we will reveal how you can become an RICS regsitered dispute board member, and what we wil be doing to promote Dispute Boards and the Register to global markets.

If you're interested in coming along, contact Fay Hartland: fhartland@rics.org

Expert witness "hot tubbing"

The weather last weekend was glorious and I decided to invite a few friends around for our first barbeque of 2012. I thought I might as well because you never know when the weather will be good enough to do it again.

I got talking to a surveyor friend over a burger and he told me he had spent the previous Friday morning 'hot tubbing' in an arbitration hearing.

Well, you can imagine the picture this conjured up in my mind. I have seen these hot tubs in garden centres and often wondered why people would want to bathe outdoors. But in an arbitration hearing at a Holiday Inn just off the M6? Why? How? Can’t you get arrested for that?

These and other questions came spilling out to the extent I didn’t at first hear my surveyor friend’s frantic explanation. He didn’t actually mean he had a bath in front of an arbitrator, lawyers, witnesses, etc.  I thought to myself, “thank goodness”. It wouldn’t have made for a pretty sight. My friend is a tad overweight. Well, actually he’s carrying a lot of timber. 

When he managed to calm my hysterical laughter (I just couldn’t get the picture out of my mind) my friend told me that “hot tubbing” is legal slang for a particular method of giving expert evidence in court or arbitration that is growing in popularity.

Traditionally, in England and Wales, expert witnesses give evidence in court or arbitration sequentially. In other words, one expert is examined and then cross examined and then the next expert steps up to be examined and so forth.

'Hot tubbing' involves experts giving evidence at the same time. They do it in each other's presence and in front of the judge or arbitrator, who puts the same questions to each expert in turn, effectively acting as 'chair' of a debate between the experts.

Apparently this 'hot tubbing' thing is all the rage in the Australian courts (no surprises there then). The advantages of “hot tubbing”, it is argued, is that it gives the experts a definitive role in a trial by enabling them to ask each other questions, and respond to each other's opinions. The result is that experts truly help the court to understand and appreciate technical stuff, rather than be seen to adopt a partisan position in favour of the party who is paying their fees.

I asked my friend if he thought “hot tubbing” will really take off in this country given that it involves the judge or arbitrator questioning and testing the experts, rather than parties' counsel doing this. UK methods of litigation and arbitration are, after all, based on the adversarial process, whereas “hot tubbing” puts the judge/arbitrator in an inquisitorial role.

My friend said he thinks it will, and he pointed out that research undertaken by Lord Justice Jackson during his review on costs in civil litigation led him to suggest that “hot tubbing” should be piloted in the English and Welsh courts.

I quite like the idea of experts being scrutinised by their peers. I accept there is perhaps a risk that an expert could lose concentration and concede on some issues in the heat of battle, that he might not otherwise do. But at the end of the day, if you’re an expert, should you not be able to deal with testing questions about a subject you’re supposed to know more about than most other people?

I'm a supporter. Let’s hope “hot tubbing” takes off here before too long.

Conflicts of interest in dispute resolution (2)

In my last blog I told a tale (a true one) about a room of 40 surveyors of which only 6 managed to identify what I and many others would consider to be a clear and obvious conflict of interest situation 

Peter Cliffe-Roberts, must think I am much older and more travelled than I really am, and he responded with "Name names Martin! where on earth were you - 1920's Chicago"?

Well it was 2011 and while I could say where it was and who the surveyors were, I won't because I have family living close by and would like to go back there again one day.  

Another response to my blog on conflicts came from Tim Hopkins who suggested that I "confused [my] audience by asking them to put themselves in the position of a Lawyer!" Sorry Tim but God help us if only lawyers were able to see a conflict of interest. Every working day, chartered surveyors tangle with questions around whether potenial instructions, opportunities for business relationships or even a simple conversations with people can give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interest. They can't consult a lawyer every time the question arises. (Or maybe they could if they could afford it)?

What amazes me, though perhaps it shouldn't, is that 2 different people can look at the same situation and come to competely different conclusions. I think it is because it's natural for people's views to be affected by the position they find themselves in. What I mean is that: when you are involved in a dispute, it is diffcult for you to be, and be seen to be, objective. Why? because you are on one side or another and can hardly argue with any credibilty that you don't have an axe to grind.

A tenant's surveyor once wrote to me saying that 54 people he listed by name should never act as arbitrators in rent reviews on retail properties because their businesses have acted recently, and in the past, for landlords. His argument was that "they are all obviously biased against tenants". 

It made me think that the only way we could ever satisify this tenant's surveyor would be to appoint someone who was actually biased against landlords. He was looking at this from a very narrow, subjective, point of view. Maybe, if he talked to other surveyors in the market, he would have been more reasonable, and would not have objected to most of the retail surveyors in Southern England.

My point is: the test for a conflict of interest is an objective test. As professionals, we can all ask ourselves the simple question, "would this instruction give rise to the perception of a conflict", and we can usually come up with the right answer. "If it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't right" Generally, we don't need to be lawyers to answer the question, but maybe sometimes it might be useful to phone a friend. If only for reassurance.

By the way, the new RICS guidance note on conflicts of interest in dispute resolution is now published and chartered surveyors can download it free on www.rics.org

Conflicts of interest in dispute resolution

I have recently travelled from one end of the country to the other giving presentations and workshops on the subject of conflicts of interest. Most of the people I talked to were pretty clued up on what is and what is not a conflict. But there are some who, it would seem, wouldn't recognise a conflict if it came in wrapping paper with "I'm a conflict of interest" written all over it. 

I use a series of PowerPoint slides which each desribe a different scenario. I ask the audience to discuss whether there is anything in a scenario that would give rise to a conflict of interest. One of my slides describes the following situation: 

You are a lawyer in private practice. It's a small firm, just you, your partner and a part time PA. 

It's Friday and it's the end of a quiet week. In fact business has been quiet for a few weeks now. Just as you are about to pack up and head down to the Dog and Duck pub to play darts and chill out over a beer with friends, a new client calls you and asks if you would act as an arbitrator in a dispute he has with one of his customers. He tells you the customer's name is Bob Summthink.

You immediately recognise Bob is your best mate. You went to school with Bob. You went to college with Bob. You went to Butlins with Bob and his parents every summer holiday from when you were 9 years old until you were 17.

Bob and you are joint owners of a holiday home in Mablethorpe. You were best man at Bob's wedding in July last year and you were Godfather at his son's christening in November (work it out for yourself).

You and Bob play golf every Saturday come rain or shine. You named your eldest son "Bob". As soon as you have finished with this client today you're off down to the pub for a game of darts and a pint with Bob. You check your watch to see if the pub is open yet and notice the inscription "Happy Birthday from your best mate, Bob".

Get this. I asked one particular audience of around 40 people (I won't say where it was) to put their hands up if they thought that, in these circumstances, there was a conflict of interest that would "prevent you from acting as arbitrator in your client's dispute with Bob Summthink"?

About 6 people raised their hands. Maybe the other 34 were just shy. What do think?

Mediation works for Devon Boundary Dispute

Readers of this blog will recall the garden centre man in Devon who was in dispute with his neighbour whose garden backs onto the garden centre. (See 21 Sept blog)

The dispute about the height of one of the neighbour's fences and the location of a second had gone on since 2001. Someone in the local pub told me that the police had recently paid both neighbours a visit and that they had each spent around £40,000 each on lawyers.

Well I was in Devon over Christmas visiting my wife's side of the family.  (Actually, there were moments between Boxing day and the New Year when I though I might need a mediator to sort out my Mother in Law, but let's not go there).

I took a walk one morning and ended up at the garden centre. I saw the man who owns it talking to a customer who looked very much the country gent type. I hovered by the patio furniture section until he was free. I reckon this man could chat for England because it was nearly 20 minutes before he finished with the customer and walked in my direction.

"Hello" I said. He recognised me and immediately went into telling me how he had found a chartered surveyor to act as a mediator. He said the surveyor mediator "really knows his apples" and explained stuff to him and his neighbour that they hadn't fully understood before. In one day the mediator had helped these 2 warring neighbours to resolve a 10 year dispute. 

"How is your relationship with your neighbour now"? I asked. 

"Oh it's much better" he said. "In fact, that was him I was just speaking to before I bumped into you". 

Made my Christmas that did.

What's in store for 2012?

We're nearly at the end of 2011 and I wonder what the next year has in store.

The Government response to consultation on reforms to the County Court will probably get lots of mediators excited in 2012

The amendments to the Construction Act, which came in to force in November, will probably get lots of adjudicators excited

A recovery in the commercial property rental market in the latter part of the year will probably get lots of rent review arbitrators excited.

Well...here's hoping hey?

I wish you a great Christmas

The costs of going to court to resolve a boundary dispute

Why neighbour disputes should not go to court

 If you want a lesson in the futility of going to court to resolve a boundary dispute just read the decision of the Court of Appeal in Zarb v. Parry [2011] EWCA Civ 1306

On a lovely Sunday morning in July 2007, Mr and Mrs Parry were taking photographs around their house and garden when they heard their neighbour making a noise. Apparently this was not unusual as at weekends the Parry's neighbours "frequently used a chainsaw, tractor and post rammer around their property". 

On this occasion, however, they "were absolutely amazed" to find their neighbours banging fence posts into their lawn. The Parrys said "I think our neighbours thought we were away...and were very surpirised at being caught"

It seems the Parry's neighbours, The Zarbs, quickly overcame their surprise and, taking out a tape measure and a map Mr Zarb marked out a strip of land that he determined was the proper boundary and said he was "taking it by force because it belonged to him" .

This could have got very messy. The Parry's took photos. They fetched a dictation machine and recorded the ensuing coversation which, it would seem, got a little bit agressive and involved some nose-to-nose glaring.

Fast forward a year to August 2008, and the Parrys and Zarbs agreed to use the RICS Neighbour Disputes Service. A hugely experienced and knowledgeable chartered surveyor was appointed by RICS to help the Parry's and Zarbs to resolve their boundary dispute. His name is David Powell.

Mr Powell knows more than most people do about boundaries, and he has helped to resolve thousands of similar cases. He visited the properties and drew up a plan recording as best he could the boundaries.

This then turned into an all too typical case of someone getting themselves superglued to the belief that they are right, no matter what anyone else says.  It seemed irrelevant that Mr Powell was an eminent expert in boundary issues, that he has acted as an expert in over 4000 court cases or that he was completely impartial, the Zarbs didn't like his report and wouldn't accept it. Their solicitors (who presumably have even more expertise in boundaries than Mr Powell) alleged there were errors in his report. And so the dispute went to litigation and eventually ended up in the Court of Appeal.  The Zarbs lost.

I don't know how much the Zarbs spent on the litigation, except that the "proceedings were costly" according to Lady Justice Arden. She said that Mr Powell had "fully investigated the dispute" and "concluded that the strip of land" was owned by the Parrys. She also said that Mr Powell had "reached a clear and sensible conclusion" . It's a shame the Zarbs and their advisors didn't see it that way too, or at least not until it was too late.

Predicting disputes

 I was reading a magazine called "New Scientist" last night. It is full of amazing information about, would you believe it, "science stuff".

Much of the time I spent reading articles in this splendid magazine was wasted because very little of it registered. I confess that whilst I think I am interested in quantum mechanics, dark matter, Higgs Boson particles and even the possibility of a theory of everything, I really don't understand any of it.

However, there was one article I read that took my fancy. It was about "predictive modelling", and it explained how scientists have re- developed software which helps to predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and they've turned it into something that helps the Los Angeles Police Department predict where and when crimes are going to happen. it seems it works too.

I like this idea about  "predictive modelling" and I think it could be adapted for the construction industry to reduce costs and time spent on litigating disputes. Why not?

I am a betting man, as £2 on the lottery every single Saturday for the past 5 years will attest. And I am willing to bet that the future for ADR is going to involve predicting, and therefore avoiding, disputes. This might seem mere intellectual theorising, but the reality is that methods for predicting conflicts on construction projects are already being explored and even used across the globe.

Let me give an example. Dispute Boards are used routinely on major project work, including the London 2012 Olympics. DBs represent a new and radical way of thinking about how to deal with disputes. What DBs do is they spotlight (predict) areas where disputes can arise and nip them in the bud before they escalate and end up in slow and costly litigation.

RICS believes in Dispute Boards and we're getting involved in a big way. Watch this blog for more.

Dispute avoidance is better than dispute resolution

The problem with dispute resolution is it usually happens when it's too late. In other words, being involved in a property or construction dispute and looking for a way to resolve it is a bit like being lost and asking for directions, only to be told “if I were you, I wouldn’t have started from here”.

That's because dispute resolution methods such as arbitration come into play only after a dispute has kicked off and often only when the parties are talking through their lawyers or claims consultants.

Dispute resolution often happens after an irrational amount of money has already been spent, emotions have been stretched to breaking point, and parties have become entrenched and embittered

Across the globe, an increasing number of governments and industries have been exploring and implementing methods to reduce costs and time spent on resolving disputes, by avoiding them in the first place.

It seems the future is going to be about conflict avoidance and dispute management, particularly in the construction sector where processes such as Dispute Boards are becoming increasingly important.

Dispute Boards have already been used on major high-profile project work, including the London 2012 Olympics. It is a process that spotlights (predicts) areas where disputes can arise and nips them in the bud before they escalate and end up in costly, time consuming litigation. There is a cost involved, a dispute board has to be paid for it's work, but the cost is usually mightily outweighed by the savings.  

Resolving boundary disputes

My latest blog on boundary disputes generated a lot of interest. I fear there are more people suffering boudary disputes than I had realised. To all those who emailed me asking for information about the RICS neighbour disputes service,  I will get back to you.

A short while back, I attended a really classy dinner. It was set in a grand oak panelled hall right in the heart of the City of London.  All the men wore formal black suits and ties, and all the women looked lovely in posh frocks. I found myself sitting between someone who reads the news on BBC 2 and a very senior judge. The newsreader mentioned (a few times) that he has written a book. The judge was a "listener". He looked into his glass of Port and he asked me "what do you do for a living"?

Those who have read the blog I posted in March this year will be forgiven for thinking that I responded "I don't know". However, I said that I work for RICS and I help to develop ways for people to resolve property disputes without having to go to court. I told him about a neighbour disputes scheme that RICS had developed and the judge began to ask me lots of questions about it. I quickly realised that he was testing the credibilty of the scheme.

I began by saying that our starting point is to consider that in every dispute there are 2 rational people who simply want an answer to a question which neither of them is expert enough to resolve. The judge "guffawed", coughed up some of his Port and suggested our starting point was perhaps over optimistic. He said "one rational party in a dispute maybe, but 2 is rare in my experience. And it begs the question why is there a dispute in the first place"? I went on to explain the RICS scheme further. 

It is natural that one neighbour wil be suspicious of an expert's evaluation on a question like the location of a boundary, if the expert who gives the evaluation is being paid by the other neighbour. The RICS scheme introduces an expert who is independently appointed by the President of RICS. The expert's impartiality is unquestionable and he is effectively acting for both neighbours. This gives both neighbours confidence that the evaluation is made by an expert who knows what he is about, and who has no axe to grind whatsoever. The judge nodded and looked into his Port.

"Well" I said, "we must anticipate that simply giving an impartial evaluation on the question about where a boundary is, may not actually satisfy one or even both the neighbours. In many cases disputes between neighbours revolve around an issue like the location of a boundary, but there are often other, underlying, issues that keep the dispute alive. So the expert appointed by the President of RICS can help by acting as an impartial mediator".  Mediation is a much better way of resolving issues that go to the heart of relationships between people because it aims to find solutions that both sides are happy with. Courts don't do this. Also mediation is quicker and much cheaper than going to court. The judge looked at me and then sniffed his Port.

In some cases where neighbours have had an impartial evaluation and been through mediation, one of them may still want their day in court. I have read about many instances of people losing life savings and even their homes paying legal bills. So, if disputing neighbours who use scheme still end up in court, one or both of them can use the content of the expert's evalaution to help the court reach a quick decision and avoid lengthy, expensive, litigation.

The judge, who had been silent throughout my explanation. looked at me and said, "very good". I am not sure whether he was referring to his Port or my description of the RICS Neighbour Disputes Scheme. I like to think it was the latter.

More about boundary disputes

I have just been on holiday to sunny East Devon. It's a lovely part of the UK. The scenery is beautiful and sometimes dramatic.  Anyone who has driven the coast road from Bridport to Abbotsbury will back me up on this. The pubs are old fashioned, and the people are remarkably friendly and welcoming to tourists and also to each other. Well most of them are.

I stayed in a little coastal resort which has managed to remain unspoilt and a little old fashioned. There are 2 pubs, one of which you would never come across unless by accident or a local has taken you there by the hand. The beach is made up of all sizes of pebbles, and is dotted with small fishing boats. There are half a dozen retail outlets on the main street. One offers many flavours of ice cream. Another sells fresh fish and local crab. There are 2 teashops, a general grocer and a shop that sells wedding dresses. (Don't ask me)!

On the edge of town is a small garden centre, which is privately owned and managed by a man dressed permanently in overalls and who speaks with a marvellous west country accent. He seemed permanently jolly, until I mentioned a number of handwritten signs on posts I had noticed pinned to an external fence. I was shocked to see that the signs were in fact  "rude" messages aimed at his neighbour. (I can't tell you what was actually written on the signs other than to say they seemed to question the neighbour's legitimacy).

It seems the apparently nice garden centre man is actually an angry man. He is in dispute with his neighbour whose garden backs onto the garden centre. Of course I couldn't help asking questions. I found out that the dispute is about the height of one of the neighbour's fences and the location of a second, which the garden centre man claims is on his property. I was dismayed (that's the best word I can think of) to find that the dispute had gone on since 2001. In 10 years the garden centre man had spent over £40,000 in legal bills. Other than the signs posted around the border, some shouting over the fences and the odd solicitor's letter, he had not really communicated with his neighbour for 9 years . The dispute was still ongoing and there is apparently no end in sight.

In the pub that evening I heard the local constabulary had paid the garden centre a visit and the signs have since been removed. I also heard that the garden centre man's neighbour (a retired maths teacher) had spent a lot of money on legal advice and 3 separate expert reports. All in all these 2 Devonian gentlemen have spent in excess of £80,000 between them to no avail.

I was on holiday but still had to try and help. I gave the garden centre man a pamphlet which explained how he and his neighbour could resolve their dispute using mediation. (I keep copies in the boot of my car). I gave him another pamphlet and suggested he passed this to his neighbour, and that they should both think carefully before wasting more time and money on legal action.  I said "don't just pin the pamphlet to a post. Give it to your neighbour personally". 

Today is my first back at work after my holiday in Devon. Among the many emails in my inbox this morning is one from the garden centre man's neighbour. He wants to know more about mediation and how it could help him. 

Boundary Disputes

Boundary disputes are awful things. They destroy relationships and often result in legal action which drains people of their savings, and sometimes leaves them without  their homes. Earlier this year I wrote about a retired couple who were in danger of losing the seaside home they bought for their retirement, all because of an argument about a 13 centimetre boundary. 

The Ministry of Justice is currently looking at possible reforms to the County Courts which may actually lead to many boundary disputes being channelled towards alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation. And it seems that, even though they may not like the idea of routinely referring cases to mediation, senior judges would welcome the use of ADR to resolve boundary disputes. Why is it, I wonder?

Well, maybe one reason is that the location of a boundary is often less about legal rights or wrongs as it is about getting an answer to a technical question.  Questions about land and property are best answered by chartered surveyors rather than lawyers. Another reason is that it is often the case that a dispute about a boundary is in fact just one of a number of issues that 2 neighbours need to resdolve.  And because these issues can often involve emotional matters, the courts can't help. But a surveyor acting as a mediator can. 

I took a call from a Solicitor this week. He had just been to court representing a client in a boundary dispute. During the proceedings the judge drew the attention of both parties to the RICS Neighbour DIsputes Service. The judge had come across it on the internet and suggested that the parties might consider using it.

I told the Solicitor who called me that the service involves the appointment of a chartered surveyor who would give an expert and  impartial evalaution of where the boundary lies. The Solicitor wondered if this would be any good. Both parties had already instructed surveyors who had provided expert reports. "What's the point of another survey"?

I said "yes, but it's often the case that one neighbour will think that the surveyor instructed by the other neighbour is not independent because he is being paid by the other neighbour. In short he is bound to give his client the answer he wants to hear". I said that "a surveyor appointed by RICS will be seen as having no axe to grind and to be completely independent".

The Solicitor liked this. He also liked the fact that the chartered surveyor could mediate other disputes which were not necessarily about the boundary, but were causing the neighbours to continue to fall out with each other.

He asked: "does the surveyor make a binding decision"? I said: "no, he makes an evaluation, but the neighbours are not bound by it. However, since he is an expert who understands boundary matters, and since he is completely independent, the neighbours should respect his view, and perhaps recognise that if they carry on with court proceedings they will get to the same outcome. Only it will take longer and cost a lot more money".

The Solicitor likes the RICS Neighbour Dispute Service. I hope his client and the other party do too. If you want to know more about it email to drs@rics.org or go to the web page at: www.rics.org/drs

Cowboy Builders

I came across an astonishing fact in a “Which” survey this week which said that 2.5 million families in the UK have had disputes with “cowboy builders and decorators” within the last 3 years.

My mate Bob is a builder. (I know what you’re thinking, but it’s true. His name is actually Bob and he is a builder).

Bob refurbished my house last year. I thought his prices were okay and he did a great job. He wasn’t too happy though, when I asked him to enter into a JCT contract for home owner/occupiers before he started work.

“Look”, I said. “I spend a lot of time talking to people who have disputes with their builders. Most of them have no choice but to either let the dispute lie, or suffer the expense and time of going court. All because they didn’t have a written contract with the builder which included a dispute resolution clause”

“ I have had to tell endless people that, if they had entered into a JCT home owner  contract it would be less likely that they would have had a dispute in the first place, Secondly, the contract has a dispute resolution clause which sets out a cheap and quick way to resolve any dispute if one did happen”.

“Imagine it” said I. “If I give this advice out every day and then I have a dispute with my own builder. I would be a laughing stock”.

“But I’m your mate” he said. 

“Exactly” I said

Bob and I didn't have a dispute, but he did fall out with another client, who wasn't his mate.

Bob had nearly finished the job when the client had asked for extra work. They then fell out when Bob gave him the bill.

The amount in dispute was about £4000, and they didn't really want to go to court.  So I gave Bob some information about mediation and the name of a good mediator. He talked this through with his client and they actually agreed to mediate their dispute

And guess what? It was resolved in a matter of hours. Bob and his client are back on friendly terms and it didn't cost them much either.