Sound solutions for your brand

Most contentious IP practices begin where the dispute has already crystallised, and end when the litigation concludes. Dispute Management takes a far broader view. It recognises that the most valuable interventions often come long before any legal claim has been formulated — and that, even once a dispute is live, litigation is one option among many, rather than the default. 

The discipline spans five connected stages, each addressing a different point on the dispute lifecycle. The right engagement may sit entirely within one stage, or move sequentially through several. The starting point is always the same: a clear understanding of the commercial outcome being sought, and a deliberate choice about which combination of tools is most likely to deliver it. 

The most cost-effective dispute is the one that never happens. Avoidance work focuses on the systems, processes, and contractual protections that reduce the likelihood of disputes arising — and that put a business in the strongest position if they do. This includes risk audits, internal training, design and clearance procedures, contract review, and appropriate IP insurance coverage.

Once a potential dispute is identified, the quality of the preparation determines almost everything that follows. This stage covers the merits assessment, evidence collation, valuation of what is at stake, budget-setting, financing options, and the structuring of the project team. It also includes the strategic groundwork — trade mark filings, PR positioning, stakeholder mapping — that creates the conditions for a strong opening position. Disputes that are well-prepared resolve faster, more cheaply, and on better terms. 

Most disputes can be resolved before they ever reach a formal forum, provided the engagement is approached with the right combination of clarity, credibility, and commercial intelligence. Early Dispute Resolution covers structured B2B engagement, calibrated correspondence, settlement frameworks, and the strategic application of commercial leverage. The goal is to create a path to resolution that serves both parties' real interests — preserving relationships and reputation where possible, and reaching an outcome that is durable rather than imposed. 

Where direct engagement does not deliver resolution, ADR provides a structured forum that retains the commercial flexibility, confidentiality, and relationship-preservation that adversarial process tends to destroy. Mediation is the most established form, but the broader category includes expert determination, early neutral evaluation, and arbitration. Choosing the right mechanism, framing the issues correctly, and entering the process with a clear strategy are critical to making ADR work. 

Litigation has its place — but it should be a deliberate strategic choice, not a default. When it is the right answer, it should be designed and managed as a commercial investment, with phased budgets, decision gates, and a clear view of what success looks like beyond the question of winning or losing. The procedural options available in the UK — including the IPEC, expedited procedures, and streamlined trial mechanisms — give significant scope for proportionate, cost-controlled litigation when properly planned. 

Over twenty years advising on contentious IP matters, I have sat at every point around the negotiating table — instructing counsel, leading settlement discussions, attending mediations as party representative, and acting as advocate at trial. I have seen what makes mediations succeed and what makes them fail.

The disputes that resolve well are rarely the ones that focus on the legal arguments. They are the ones where the mediator creates the conditions for parties to move beyond their stated positions and engage with their real commercial interests. That requires deep subject matter knowledge, commercial credibility, and a disciplined understanding of the human dynamics that drive resolution.

That is the experience I now bring to my role as a CEDR-accredited mediator. 

Twenty years of litigation experience means I can reality-test each party's legal position credibly – helping them see their case as a tribunal or court would. 

IP disputes are always business disputes. I understand brand value, licensing economics, and reputational risk – and can help parties focus on outcomes that make commercial sense. 

Having spent my career on both sides of IP disputes, I know the real costs, timelines, and risks of litigation – enabling honest conversations about alternatives. 

I bring a calm, empathetic presence to the room – creating the psychological safety that lets parties move beyond entrenched positions l.

I'm not a passive facilitator. I reality-test assumptions and ask the difficult questions – always respectfully, and always with a view to arriving at informed interest-based decisions. 

The best mediations often produce outcomes no one had considered. I help parties to look for creative, commercially intelligent solutions that serve their real interests.