2 août 2021
Disputes Quick Read – 62 de 105 Publications
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 novembre 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 octobre 2025
11 juin 2025
30 janvier 2025
6 décembre 2024
14 novembre 2024
14 novembre 2024
15 octobre 2024
14 décembre 2023
13 décembre 2023
17 octobre 2023
4 août 2023
21 juillet 2023
10 juillet 2023
1 juin 2023
20 avril 2023
8 mars 2023
14 février 2023
13 février 2023
8 février 2023
19 janvier 2023
3 octobre 2022
22 septembre 2022
9 août 2022
25 juillet 2022
6 juillet 2022
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 juillet 2022
27 juillet 2022
29 juillet 2022
17 juin 2022
13 juin 2022
26 mai 2022
31 mai 2022
4 avril 2022
5 avril 2022
31 mars 2022
21 septembre 2021
13 septembre 2021
6 septembre 2021
2 août 2021
21 juillet 2021
15 juillet 2021
5 mai 2021
21 avril 2021
31 mars 2021
26 février 2021
24 février 2021
20 janvier 2021
12 janvier 2021
23 novembre 2020
16 octobre 2020
23 septembre 2020
7 octobre 2020
15 avril 2020
27 avril 2020
21 avril 2020
2 juin 2020
16 juin 2020
9 juillet 2020
21 juillet 2020
3 décembre 2021
24 novembre 2021
8 octobre 2021
10 janvier 2022
20 janvier 2022
22 mars 2022
7 avril 2022