Does a mediation settlement end every claim? Lessons from United Living v Dovista

A signed settlement can bring valuable closure without ending every possible claim. The important questions are what the parties actually released—and whether bringing something further would misuse the court’s process.

In United Living (South) Limited v Dovista UK Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2676 (TCC), decided on 3 November 2026, Eyre J dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application to strike out later proceedings for abuse and its alternative application for summary declarations of compromise or estoppel. This was a procedural decision: it established neither professional negligence nor an entitlement to the sums subsequently claimed.

Two mediations, one settlement, further defects

United Living engaged Hawkins Brown as architect for the Wenlock Building at Wharf Road, London. Defect litigation led to mediation in December 2022, without agreement, and a second mediation in February 2023, producing agreement in principle. A settlement agreement dated 20 March 2023 and a Tomlin order followed. Hawkins Brown paid £1.575 million.

United Living had earlier abandoned claims concerning the Velfac system because it genuinely considered the problem one of workmanship, an analysis also urged by Hawkins Brown’s solicitors. Reports received in January 2023 suggested possible design responsibility. At settlement, United Living knew of a potential further claim needing substantial investigation, but did not tell Hawkins Brown or the court. Later claims sought £3.142 million for Velfac replacement and £4.209 million for structural steel fire-protection defects.

Full and final settlement of what?

Contractual scope and procedural abuse are different questions. A claim can fall outside a release yet still face an abuse challenge. Conversely, a contractual release may defeat a claim regardless of whether issuing proceedings was abusive.

Here, the agreement settled the defined “Dispute”: the live claims in the earlier proceedings at settlement, concerning elements of remedial works. It did not release every claim arising from the appointment or project. Earlier abandoned claims were outside that scope. Broad related-party wording and entire-agreement provisions did not transform a limited compromise into global peace.

A subjective expectation of finality cannot rewrite agreed wording. Nor does a Tomlin order itself expand the contractual release. Properly drafted wider releases may cover other or unknown claims, depending on their language and context. The practical question is therefore not merely whether an agreement says “full and final”, but which claims those words describe. See the judgment at paragraphs 69, 78–81 and 89.

Could a claim have been raised—or should it have been?

The court applied the approach associated with Henderson v Henderson and Johnson v Gore Wood. A claim could have been raised earlier without necessarily being one that should have been raised. Even where both propositions apply, abuse requires a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances, ordinarily involving oppression or unjust harassment.

There is no automatic rule requiring every claim about one project to be brought or settled together. The same appointment, duties and building can generate distinct causes of action. Sensible narrowing and genuine abandonment of untenable issues should not be discouraged by forcing parties to plead speculative allegations merely to preserve them.

Why the later proceedings survived

The circumstances mattered collectively: United Living’s genuine original assessment, distinct issues, new information, and a potential claim still inchoate at the second mediation, requiring expert and legal investigation. There was no representation of a global release; the agreement was limited, and Hawkins Brown could have sought wider protection.

This is not permission to conceal claims or negotiate dishonestly. Bad faith was alleged, not found. A tentative possibility requiring investigation differs materially from a fully prepared connected claim deliberately held back until immediately after settlement. Parties should not assume that repeating this contractual wording will protect different conduct. See paragraphs 125, 131–132 and 142.

Connected claims and the court: a narrow conclusion

Aldi Stores and Outotec underline the importance of raising connected further claims with the court during ongoing litigation so that it can manage matters properly. Keeping future claims secret risks strike-out. In this case, Eyre J held that the Aldi guidelines were not engaged because the potential claim remained speculative and needed substantial investigation; alternatively, any failing did not make the later proceedings abusive.

That fact-sensitive conclusion is not a general exemption for immature claims. Nor is a breach automatically decisive: the circumstances still require assessment (paragraphs 138 and 141–142). Telling a mediator privately is not equivalent to informing the opponent or court. A contractual reservation alone cannot immunise fresh proceedings against abuse or overcome limitation.

Estoppel and sanctions: what was not decided

Summary judgment on estoppel was refused, not every possible estoppel finally determined at trial. Entering the limited agreement did not represent that outside claims were released, and entire-agreement and non-reliance terms also mattered (paragraphs 98–100).

The judge did not resolve the general dispute over whether strike-out must automatically follow Henderson abuse or whether sanctions are discretionary: he found no abuse. He nevertheless said that, had he found abusive withholding which caused settlement on a false basis, he would have struck out in this case (paragraphs 143–144).

Preparing for mediation: choose the intended peace

Our practical recommendation—not a new duty imposed by this judgment—is to map the dispute before negotiating. Mediation can address a broader commercial relationship than the pleaded issues, but there is no compulsory rule to settle every claim. Decide deliberately between global peace and partial resolution, with legal advice about connected claims and any need to notify the opponent or court.

For global peace, negotiate explicit scope covering the relevant project or contract, appropriate parties, and identified known or unknown claims. Assess and price uncertainty. For partial settlement, identify released claims and exclusions clearly. Where relevant, address costs, insurers, contribution and third-party exposure, ongoing investigation, evidence preservation and next steps. Reservations cannot override abuse rules or limitation.

A short practical checklist

• Map pleaded claims, counterclaims, contribution claims, abandoned issues, potential further claims and relevant parties.
• Agree whether the objective is global peace or a defined partial settlement; do not hide a developed connected claim.
• Ask lawyers to check release wording, exclusions, court notification, limitation and authority to settle.
• Allow drafting time and record practical follow-up, including any continuing investigation.

The mediator’s role—and the value of reconvening

A mediator can surface scope, reality-test expectations of finality and explore broader, phased or partial solutions. Private-session confidentiality must be respected, with authority obtained before sharing information. Lawyers advise on releases and procedural obligations. This case created neither a new exception to without-prejudice privilege nor a universal mediation disclosure duty.

December’s lack of agreement did not mean mediation failed: reconvening produced settlement of the existing claims. Follow-up can help, provided scope is revisited when new information emerges. Settlement need not wait until every uncertainty disappears; parties can deliberately resolve what is ready.

ProMediate offers commercial mediation and construction and engineering mediation, including defects, remedial works and multi-party disputes. Request a mediation or contact ProMediate to discuss a suitable approach.

Primary source: United Living (South) Limited v Dovista UK Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2676 (TCC), Eyre J, 3 November 2026.

This article provides general information and practical mediation commentary, not legal advice on an individual dispute.