Insights — Disputes
Before the Letter Arrives: Managing Disputes Before They Become Litigation
Most commercial disputes announce themselves long before anybody instructs a lawyer. This article examines how disputes build, what to do in the first days, and how to keep a disagreement from becoming an expense that outlasts the relationship.
The dispute that was visible months earlier
Look back at any commercial dispute and you will usually find that it was visible well before it became formal. A customer stopped responding to emails. A supplier's delivery notes began to differ from its invoices. A partner raised a concern that was noted and not addressed. A payment was late, and then later.
Businesses miss these signals for understandable reasons. Everyone is busy, the relationship is long-standing, and the issue may resolve itself. Raising a concern feels confrontational, and there is a natural reluctance to spend management time on a problem that has not yet arrived.
The cost of that reluctance is the difference between a difficult conversation and a legal claim. A dispute addressed at the first sign of difficulty is usually a commercial negotiation. The same dispute addressed a year later, after positions have hardened and correspondence has accumulated, is an expense with a life of its own.
How commercial disputes actually begin
Most disputes begin with a mismatch of expectation rather than a deliberate breach. One party believed the specification included something the other did not. One believed a deadline was indicative rather than fixed. One believed a variation had been agreed and the other did not regard the conversation as an agreement at all.
The second common origin is cash. A business under pressure pays late, and a supplier under pressure of its own responds sharply. What began as a timing problem becomes a dispute about the terms of the contract, because the parties now have a reason to read documents they had previously ignored.
The third is the change of personnel. A relationship built over years between two individuals is often undocumented and unexamined. When one of them leaves, the informal understanding leaves with them, and what remains is the written contract, which may say something quite different from what the parties had been doing in practice.
The first twenty-four hours
When a dispute becomes formal, the first day matters more than the first month. The immediate priorities are to establish what has actually happened, to identify who inside the business knows about it, and to make sure that nothing is done in the heat of the moment that will have to be undone later.
The instinct to respond immediately and forcefully is understandable and usually wrong. Correspondence written in the first hours tends to be characterised by assertion rather than fact, and it is difficult to withdraw. A short acknowledgement, an instruction that the matter is being investigated, and a pause is almost always the better opening.
It is also the moment to identify the decision-maker. A dispute handled by whoever happened to receive the letter tends to drift. Somebody senior should own it, with a clear view of what the business is trying to achieve and authority to settle within defined limits.
Preserving the evidence
The documents that will determine the outcome of most commercial disputes already exist, and they are frequently lost. Emails are deleted under retention policies, messages on personal devices are never captured, and files are overwritten in the ordinary course of business.
Once a dispute is reasonably anticipated, the business should stop routine deletion and take steps to preserve the relevant material. That includes correspondence, drafts, meeting notes, site records, photographs, system logs and messages on any platform the parties used to communicate.
The duty to preserve arises earlier than most businesses assume. It does not begin when proceedings are issued; it begins when litigation is contemplated. A business that has destroyed material after that point faces consequences that have nothing to do with the merits of the original dispute, and everything to do with the way it responded to it.
Correspondence: what you write will be read
In a dispute, every email is a document. It will be read by the other side, by their advisers, and potentially by a court. Statements of position, admissions, characterisations of the other party's conduct and speculation about the outcome all become part of the record.
The practical rules are simple. Write as though the correspondence will be read aloud. Avoid adjectives. Deal with facts and requests rather than with the conduct or motives of the other party. Do not make threats that the business is not prepared to carry out, and do not make concessions that the business does not intend to honour.
Internal correspondence deserves the same care. Emails between colleagues discussing the other party's honesty, competence or motives are discoverable, and they are frequently the most damaging documents in a file. Candour internally is necessary; intemperate language is not.
Standstill and limitation
Every claim is subject to a limitation period, and once it expires the claim is lost regardless of its merits. The periods are long enough to be forgotten and short enough to matter: typically six years for claims under a simple contract, twelve for claims under a deed, and shorter periods in some areas.
The periods also run from dates that are not always obvious. In a contract claim, time usually runs from the breach, not from when the loss is discovered. In claims involving latent damage, different rules apply. A business that assumes it has longer than it does may find that its claim has quietly expired.
Where a dispute is being negotiated and limitation is approaching, a standstill agreement allows the parties to continue talking without losing the right to bring a claim. It is a short, uncontroversial document, and it is far easier to obtain while the parties are still corresponding constructively.
Choosing the route
The contract usually determines the route, and where it does not, the parties have a choice. Negotiation is always available and is almost always the first step. Mediation is a structured negotiation with a neutral facilitator, and it resolves a substantial proportion of commercial disputes that reach it.
Arbitration is private, can be faster than litigation and is frequently more expensive, particularly where the amount in dispute is modest. Court proceedings are public, have a defined procedure, and produce a judgment that can be enforced through established mechanisms. The choice should follow from the nature of the dispute, not from habit.
It is also worth checking whether the contract requires a particular sequence. Many provide that the parties must attempt mediation before proceedings can be issued, and a failure to follow that step can result in costs consequences even where the claim itself is strong.
The cost of being right
Businesses approach disputes as a question of entitlement: are we right? That is the wrong first question. The first question is what the business wants to achieve, and what it is prepared to spend achieving it.
The cost of a dispute is rarely limited to legal fees. There is the management time consumed by the people who know the facts, the disruption to the ordinary business, the effect on the relationship with the counterparty and its network, and the opportunity cost of the attention the dispute absorbs.
In many cases the business is right and should not pursue. The amount recoverable may be modest, the defendant may have no assets, and the process may take two years. None of that makes the claim less valid. It may make it less worth bringing, and the decision should be made deliberately rather than by momentum.
Settlement: the arithmetic nobody wants to do
Settlement is not an admission of weakness. Most commercial disputes settle, and they settle because both parties have calculated the cost of continuing against the value of the outcome, and concluded that the difference does not justify the process.
The calculation should be done early and revisited regularly. It compares the realistic recovery, discounted for the risk of losing and the time to judgment, against the costs of pursuing it, including the management time and the cost of enforcement. The number that emerges is often uncomfortable, and it is the number that should inform the decision.
Where settlement is available on reasonable terms, taking it is frequently the best commercial outcome available, even where the business believes it would win. A settlement is certain, immediate and final. A judgment is none of those things, and the gap between the two is where most of the expense of litigation lives.
Enforcement and the judgment that pays nothing
Winning is not the same as being paid. A judgment against a company with no assets is an expensive document. A judgment against an individual who has arranged their affairs carefully is frequently the same. The question of whether the defendant can pay should be considered at the beginning, not at the end.
There are ways to investigate a defendant's position, and there are enforcement mechanisms available once judgment is obtained. Charging orders, third party debt orders, attachment of earnings and insolvency proceedings each have their place. None of them is free, and none of them guarantees recovery.
The practical consequence is that the recoverability of a claim is part of its value. A strong claim against a party who cannot pay may be worth less than a weaker claim against a party who can. Businesses that ignore this distinction spend money to obtain orders they cannot enforce.
Insurance and funding
Legal expenses insurance is commonly included in commercial policies and frequently forgotten. Where it exists, it may cover the cost of pursuing or defending a claim, subject to conditions that usually require notification before costs are incurred and approval of the advisers instructed.
There are also funding arrangements available for commercial claims. Conditional fee agreements, damages based agreements and third party funding allow a claim to be pursued with the cost deferred or shared. Each has its own economics, and each is more readily available where the claim is strong, the defendant is solvent and the sum in dispute is substantial.
The practical point is that the cost of a dispute need not always be borne up front. A business that assumes it cannot afford to bring a claim may be wrong, and the question is worth asking before the claim is abandoned rather than after.
Managing a dispute while running a business
A dispute that is allowed to become the organising principle of the business is a dispute that has already done damage. The people who know the facts are the people who run the operation, and the more of their attention the dispute absorbs, the more the operation suffers.
The discipline is to contain it. One person owns the dispute and is accountable for it. A single point of contact handles the correspondence. The relevant documents are gathered once and maintained in one place. Reporting to the leadership team is brief and periodic rather than continuous.
It also helps to be clear about confidentiality. Employees should know what they may say about the matter and to whom. Public statements, social media posts and conversations with customers about the dispute are all capable of making a difficult situation worse, and none of them help the case.
Learning from the dispute
Every dispute is a diagnosis. It reveals something about the contracts the business uses, the way it manages relationships, the records it keeps or the controls it applies. Businesses that treat each dispute as an instruction become progressively harder to sue.
The review should be short and specific. What was the trigger? Which document governed the position, and was it adequate? What would have prevented the dispute, or resolved it earlier? What would the business do differently next time? The answers usually point to two or three changes that are cheap to make.
Those changes are the return on the cost of the dispute. A business that has paid for a dispute and learned nothing from it has paid twice. One that has adjusted its terms, its process or its records has converted an expensive lesson into a permanent improvement.
Prevention: the terms that avoid the fight
Most of the cost of a dispute is determined before it arises, by the terms the parties agreed and the records they kept. A clear contract, properly incorporated, removes the arguments that consume the most time and money.
The provisions that prevent disputes are unremarkable. A clear description of the deliverables. An unambiguous price and payment mechanism. A defined process for variations. A limitation of liability that is understood. A notice provision that works. A dispute resolution clause that sends the parties somewhere sensible.
Alongside the terms, the records matter. Confirmations of instructions, records of variations, notes of site meetings, and a consistent practice of putting agreements in writing are all inexpensive and all reduce the scope for disagreement. The businesses that argue least are usually the ones that document most.
Insolvency and the counterparty in difficulty
Many disputes involve a counterparty whose financial position is deteriorating, and that fact changes the analysis considerably. A claim against a business in difficulty may be worth far less than its face value, and the business pursuing it may find itself competing with a long list of other creditors for a share of limited assets.
The response depends on the situation. Where a customer owes money and appears to be in trouble, early action often produces a better outcome than waiting: a negotiated payment plan, security over assets, or a personal guarantee from a director who wishes to preserve the relationship. Where the counterparty is already in an insolvency process, the claim becomes a creditor claim, and the business should consider carefully whether to participate or to write the amount off and move on.
There is also a defensive dimension. If the business itself is under pressure, the way it handles its obligations matters a great deal. Continuing to trade while insolvent, preferring one creditor over another, or making payments that cannot be justified all create personal exposure for directors. Advice should be taken early, while there are still options, rather than after the position has deteriorated further.
When proceedings are issued against you
Receiving a claim form is a different experience from sending one, and the immediate requirements are procedural rather than commercial. There are strict deadlines for acknowledging service and for filing a defence, and a failure to comply can result in judgment being entered against the business without any consideration of the merits of the claim at all.
The first steps are to diarise the deadlines immediately, to notify any insurer whose policy may respond to the claim, and to establish the facts before responding on the substance. The business should not assume that a claim is well founded, and it should not assume that it is not. Both errors are common in practice, and both are expensive in different ways.
It is also worth considering whether the claim is better met with a counterclaim or a set-off. A business that owes money but has a valid claim of its own may be able to reduce or extinguish the amount payable, and its position is frequently stronger when both claims are resolved together rather than in separate proceedings.
Confidentiality and the public record
Court proceedings are ordinarily public, and the documents filed in them are generally available to anyone who asks. That means a dispute pursued through the courts will produce a public record of the disagreement, the allegations made and the outcome, which may be indexed and searchable for many years afterwards.
For many businesses that is a more significant consideration than the cost. Customers, suppliers, employees and competitors can all read a judgment. A claim that was defended successfully still leaves a record of the allegations that were made, and a claim that was settled on confidential terms leaves none at all.
Confidentiality is therefore a factor in choosing the forum and in choosing whether to settle. Arbitration is private. Mediation produces no public record. A settlement agreement can include confidentiality obligations binding on both parties. Where the reputational dimension matters, these considerations should form part of the strategy from the outset rather than being addressed at the very end.
Working with advisers: how to instruct well
The cost and quality of legal advice depend substantially on the quality of the instructions. A clear brief reduces the time spent establishing the facts, narrows the scope of the work and allows the adviser to focus on the question the business actually needs answered.
A good instruction sets out the background, the documents, the chronology, the commercial objective and the constraints. It states what the business wants to achieve, not merely what has happened. It identifies the decision that has to be made and the deadline by which it must be made. And it asks for advice in a form the business can act upon, whether that is a short note, a call or a draft document.
It is equally important to stay involved. Ask what the strategy is, what the likely costs are, what the alternative routes are and what the adviser would do in the business's position. Good legal advice is a collaboration, and the businesses that get the most from it are the ones that treat their advisers as part of the decision rather than as a supplier of documents to be filed away.
The chronology: the document that decides most cases
In almost every dispute, one document determines how well the business performs: the chronology. It is a dated list of what happened, in order, with a reference to the document or record that evidences each event. It is unglamorous, it takes a day to prepare, and it is frequently decisive in ways that are difficult to appreciate until the position has been tested.
A good chronology exposes the strengths and weaknesses of a position before the other side does. It shows where the evidence is thin, where recollections conflict, and where a key document is missing altogether. Advisers who receive a chronology can give accurate advice quickly. Those who do not spend the first weeks reconstructing facts that the business already knows and simply has not written down.
It is also the single most useful thing a business can prepare in the first days of a dispute. It forces the people involved to agree what actually happened, it identifies the documents that need to be preserved before they are lost, and it provides the foundation for every subsequent decision about strategy, settlement and cost. The businesses that handle disputes well almost always start here.
The position stated plainly
A commercial dispute is a management problem before it is a legal one. It begins as a mismatch of expectation, becomes visible as an unaddressed concern, and becomes expensive only when it is allowed to harden into positions that neither party can retreat from.
The businesses that handle disputes well are not the ones with the best lawyers. They are the ones that raise issues early, keep proper records, respond deliberately rather than instinctively, and approach settlement as a commercial calculation rather than a test of principle.
None of that removes the possibility of a dispute. It reduces the number that arise, shortens the ones that do, and ensures that when a claim is genuinely worth pursuing, the business is in a position to pursue it with evidence rather than with assertion.
Talk it through with a general counsel
A 30-minute, no-obligation conversation. No pitch and no pressure, just a straight answer on what your business needs and what it should cost.
Book an appointment