In July of this year Lord Justice Mummery in the Court of Appeal endorsed the use of mediation as a dispute resolution tool in Pennock v Hodgson  EWCA Civ 873. The case concerned a boundary dispute arising out of contested ownership of a stream. Mediation had tentatively been suggested in the course of the dispute, but had not been undertaken by the parties. The case was decided at first instance in the defendant's favour and the judgment was upheld on appeal. Mummery LJ considered it "a pity" that notwithstanding the fact that the dispute had progressed to litigation, mediation had not been attempted. He described mediation as a "valuable service", noting that "in many boundary disputes both sides ultimately lose something that might have been secured in a compromise". Summing up, Mummery LJ concluded that "the unfortunate consequences of a case like this are that, in the absence of any compromise, someone wins, someone loses, it always costs a lot of money and usually generates a lot of ill-feeling that does not end with the litigation. None of those things are good for neighbours." The case illustrates the continued endorsement of ADR by the courts.