Australian courts are forcing people to litigate rather than settle commercial disputes, according to Sydney lawyer Peter Keel. Mr Keel said yesterday that judges, especially in the Federal Court, were taking a very restrictive view of a principle that gave credit to parties that attempted to settle when it came to assessing costs awards. Usually if one party proposed a reasonable settlement in what is called a Calderbank letter and the other side refused to accept it and subsequently won litigation the winning side would not get costs, as would be usual for a winning side. However, judges were not giving credit for Calderbank letters unless they offered a settlement in the sorts of terms courts themselves would give. This precluded non-disclosure clauses, settlement of multiple claims and refusal to admit liability. “”This means Calderbank letters are losing the muscle they once had to force parties to settle on reasonable terms,” Mr Keel said. Parties could take advantage of this to delay paying out because it took a long time to get to court. Mr Keel cited several Federal Court cases where the “”black-letter”, legalistic approach had been taken. He called for legislation to ensure a more effective approach.