The TTP remarked that legal issues were to the fore in this claim to a greater extent than in any previous TTP hearing. We also note the heavy use that both ASR and Network Rail have made of external legal advisers. While it is clearly for each party to a dispute to determine how best to put its case to protect its legal and commercial rights, it is self-evident that extensive use of external advisers increases the costs of a dispute. It is also worth bearing in mind that, if one party makes extensive use of such advisers, the other party may feel it has to do so as well. As the Hearing Chair commented, the dispute resolution mechanism contained in the ADR rules and Part M of the Network Code is not intended to operate like commercial litigation and neither the TTP nor ORR is set up to deal with disputes argued in this way. The processes are intended to lead to a legally robust conclusion without being legalistic. We make no criticism of the conduct of any of the lawyers in front of ORR but if these processes start to take on the adversarial characteristics of commercial litigation, we have concerns that it will become increasingly difficult for the TTP or ORR to conduct industry appeals. In future cases, we hope the parties will bear this in mind

(ORR appeal determination of TTP1064, para 59)