2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read – 56 of 98 Insights
The Civil Justice Council recently published its report on the issue of compulsory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil proceedings, in which it concludes that mandatory ADR is to be "encouraged".
The report considers two key questions of legality and desirability in the context of Halsey v Milton Keys [2004] 1 WLR 3002 – a Court of Appeal decision which rejected the idea of mandatory ADR – and ultimately recommends a change to the dispute resolution status quo.
In the Halsey case, the answer was "no", on the basis that this would "impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court".
The Civil Justice Council's report disagrees. It gives examples of areas where compulsory participation in ADR is already required by the civil procedure rules (eg some family and personal injury proceedings). It also finds that introducing compulsory ADR is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR if there are appropriate safeguards.
In the Halsey case, the court again said "no", on the basis that it was not for the court to compel ADR, only to encourage it. Nevertheless, where there was reluctance to participate, the effectiveness of any process was questionable; achieving nothing except adding costs and delay to the process.
The report again disagrees, concluding that compulsory ADR could be desirable and effective for the right types of claim, provided the parties always have access to the adjudicative process. It is also supportive of judge-led ADR.
The report is a starting point and more consultation is inevitable. It echoes views already expressed by Sir Geoffrey Vos that ADR should not considered an "alternative" but an integral part of the dispute resolution process.
Questions remain, however, including:
What is certain is that there is support for a change in how other forms of dispute resolution are viewed – and having "your day in court" may soon become a novelty.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
23 October 2023
by Multiple authors
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Ben Jones, Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
by Multiple authors
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
by Multiple authors
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
7 April 2022
by multiple authors
by multiple authors
by multiple authors