2. August 2021
Disputes Quick Read – 62 von 105 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.
Andrew Howell and Natalia Faekova unpack an extraordinary case. A Mexican billionaire's strong fraud claim. Former Israeli intelligence operatives hired to target the defendant's solicitor. Secret recordings over wine and dinner. A judge who called it 'anathema to civil litigation' but may have been 'too lenient'.
19. November 2025
During an LSLA lecture on transparency and open justice, Mrs Justice Cockerill, recently appointed as Deputy Head of Civil Justice, outlined a pilot practice direction (PD) that will place select court documents squarely in the public domain via a new, public-facing side of the electronic court file (CE-File).
21. Oktober 2025
11. Juni 2025
30. Januar 2025
6. Dezember 2024
14. November 2024
14. November 2024
8. November 2024
15. Oktober 2024
14. Dezember 2023
13. Dezember 2023
17. Oktober 2023
4. August 2023
21. Juli 2023
10. Juli 2023
1. Juni 2023
20. April 2023
8. März 2023
2. März 2023
14. Februar 2023
13. Februar 2023
8. Februar 2023
19. Januar 2023
3. Oktober 2022
22. September 2022
9. August 2022
25. Juli 2022
6. Juli 2022
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
27. Juli 2022
29. Juli 2022
17. Juni 2022
13. Juni 2022
26. Mai 2022
31. Mai 2022
4. April 2022
5. April 2022
31. März 2022
21. September 2021
13. September 2021
6. September 2021
2. August 2021
21. Juli 2021
15. Juli 2021
26. Mai 2021
5. Mai 2021
21. April 2021
31. März 2021
26. Februar 2021
24. Februar 2021
20. Januar 2021
12. Januar 2021
23. November 2020
16. Oktober 2020
23. September 2020
7. Oktober 2020
12. Mai 2020
18. Mai 2020
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
21. April 2020
11. März 2020
26. Februar 2020
21. Februar 2020
2. Juni 2020
16. Juni 2020
9. Juli 2020
21. Juli 2020
3. Dezember 2021
24. November 2021
8. Oktober 2021
10. Januar 2022
20. Januar 2022
22. März 2022
7. April 2022