UK: Civil Justice Council report on ADR calls for review of Halsey guidelines but stops short of recommending mandatory mediation

Jan O’Neill
Professional Support Lawyer, London

 

The Civil Justice Council’s ADR working group has released its final report on ADR and Civil Justice, following consultation on its interim report released last year. The broad mandate of the review was “to maintain the search for the right relationship between civil justice and ADR” and to promote debate over possible reforms.

The report includes various recommendations aimed at improving the awareness of ADR (both in the general public and in the professions/judiciary) and the availability of ADR (both in terms of funding/logistics and regulation of the professionals involved).

However the recommendations likely to be of most interest to users of the civil justice system in the short term are those that relate to Court/Government encouragement of ADR.  In this regard:

  • The report does not support blanket compulsion of ADR in the sense of requiring proof of ADR activity as an administrative precondition to any particular step in the litigation.
  • It also rejects the introduction of mandatory Mediation Information and Advice Meetings (as used in the family courts) as a precondition to pursuing civil claims.

Continue reading

Article published – ADR reform: one size does not fit all

On 6 March, the Civil Justice Council held a workshop to discuss the recommendations made in its interim report on ADR, which was subject to consultation late last year. The interim report addresses concerns regarding a perceived underuse of ADR within some sections of the civil justice system and suggests a variety of possible corrective measures. The proposals include a power for the court to determine whether costs sanctions should be imposed for unreasonable conduct relating to ADR (such as an unreasonable refusal to mediate) not only at the end of a case, as currently, but during the matter when the decisions regarding ADR are taken.

Jan O’Neill has published a post on Practical Law’s Dispute Resolution blog in which she questions how realistic the suggestion of “midstream” assessment of parties’ conduct relating to ADR would be in practice. She suggests that many of the concerns expressed in the report as to the underuse of ADR are not relevant to many larger, complex claims, and urges the working group to tailor any final recommendations to the specific courts or dispute types for which the evidence suggests they are needed and practicable.

Click here to read the post (or here for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog homepage).

 

 

CJEU holds that mandatory mediation is not inherently precluded by EU law

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has concluded that national legislation imposing mandatory mediation as a pre-condition to litigation is not precluded by the EU ADR legislative framework, provided that the parties are not prevented from exercising their rights of access to the judicial system.  

However, to the extent that such a pre-condition required consumers to be assisted by a lawyer in the mediation process, or penalised them for withdrawing from the mediation without good grounds, it would be contrary to the Consumer ADR Directive (2013/11/EU):  Menini and another v Banco Popolare Società Cooperativa (Case C-75/16) (14 June 2017).  

Continue reading

Advocate General Opinion on the Consumer ADR Directive and compulsory mediation

In a case referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Italian courts, an Advocate General opinion has been issued which considers the scope of the Consumer ADR Directive, including whether it precludes national legislation from imposing mandatory mediation as a pre-condition to litigation:  Menini and another v Banco Popolare Società Cooperativa (Case C-75/16). 

Continue reading

ADR for financial disputes: Proposals to significantly enhance the Hong Kong Financial Dispute Resolution Scheme

The Hong Kong Financial Dispute Resolution Centre (FDRC), which since June 2012 has been providing ADR services to financial institutions and their individual customers in Hong Kong, has recently launched a consultation to significantly enhance the Financial Dispute Resolution Scheme (FDRS) administed by it. The FDRS provides a channel for the resolution of monetary disputes by way of “mediation first, arbitration next”.

The proposals mean that the FDRC’s jurisdiction is likely to be significantly increased, bringing the Hong Kong scheme more into line with financial dispute resolution schemes in other jurisdictions and permitting a greater number of monetary disputes to be handled by the FDRC rather than (or as well as) the courts. 

Read more detail from our Hong Kong office here.

 

Herbert Smith Freehills launches latest Guide to Dispute Resolution in Asia Pacific

Dispute Resolution in AP

Please click here to preview this publication.  To request a copy of the guide, please email asia.publications@hsf.com.


Our updated Guide to Dispute Resolution in Asia Pacific aims to provide answers to some of the basic questions a party unfamiliar with a particular jurisdiction will wish to ask when facing the prospect of having to engage in a dispute resolution process in that jurisdiction (including at the stage of negotiating contracts, when deciding on the choice of law and whether to include jurisdiction or arbitration clauses in favour of a particular jurisdiction).

Amongst the range of topics addressed in the Guide, we asked local counsel whether parties to litigation or arbitration are required to consider or submit to ADR procedures before or during proceedings. We will feature the responses of the various jurisdictions in upcoming posts and cover our first five jurisdictions (Australia, Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong and India) below. 

Continue reading

English Court of Appeal suggests a rethink of the prohibition on court-ordered compulsory mediation

In a withering attack on what he terms “the emasculation of legal aid” and the inevitable increase in unrepresented litigants in the English courts, Lord Justice Ward in the Court of Appeal has suggested that it may be time to review the rule in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 prohibiting a court from ordering unwilling parties to refer their dispute to mediation. In this regard, the Court of Appeal addressed the power of the courts to order a stay for mediation to be attempted other than at the allocation stage under CPR 26.4(2)(b): Wright v. Wright [2013] EWCA CIV 234 Court of Appeal 27 March 2013

Background

The case concerned a dispute between two unrepresented litigants, formerly successful business partners, who had fallen out and were pursuing litigation with a vengeance.  Despite being, in Ward LJ’s words, “intelligent and not unsuccessful businessmen”, the parties steadfastly refused to mediate despite the continued encouragement of the trial judge, which resulted in a disproportionately expensive trial and appeal process.  The appeal itself concerned an alleged procedural error by the trial judge in not acceding to a request by one party to adduce oral evidence, an error which Ward LJ considered may well have arisen, in part at least, as a result of the “chaos which litigants in person inevitably – and wholly understandably – manage to create” in such cases.

Mediation

The rule against court-ordered mediation was set out by Dyson LJ and Ward LJ himself in Halsey in the following terms:

“It seems to us that to oblige truly unwilling parties to refer their disputes to mediation would be to impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court.”

Delivering his judgment in Wright, Ward LJ noted that in Halsey he had been persuaded by the argument that to order parties to mediate would fall foul of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In Wright, Ward LJ suggests that he may have been wrong to decide this point as he did in Halsey and rhetorically questions whether forcing the parties to go through an additional step before gaining access to court would in fact be an “unacceptable obstruction”.  Whilst he declines to answer this question, since the point was not before the court in Wright, he suggests that a “bold judge” may wish to accede to an invitation to rule on this question, in order that the Court of Appeal may revisit this aspect of Halsey in the light of developments in mediation practice over the last decade. Ward LJ also suggests in Wright that CPR 26.4(2)(b) (which allows a court at the allocation stage to stay proceedings of its own initiative in order for the parties to attempt ADR), might permit the court at any time to direct a stay for mediation to be attempted with the warning of adverse cost consequences for unreasonably refusing to attempt ADR.

Comment

The recent reduction in legal aid funding may on its face have saved expenditure in one area, but this has, in Ward LJ’s view, simply increased the costs and expense of court proceedings, both at the trial and appellate stages.  Aside from the “inevitable chaos” of a case involving unrepresented litigants (Ward LJ refers to the requirement on judges to “micro-manage” such cases and praises Judge Anthony Thornton QC in this case for his “manful, patient, polite, careful and conscientious” efforts in this regard) he considers that Wright also highlights the impossibility of shifting litigants off the trial track and onto the parallel track of mediation, a situation which he describes as “depressing”. This is particularly so since he considers mediation to be a proper alternative to be “tried and exhausted” before finally resorting to trial, especially in cases such as this where mediation is an obvious way to move forward before parties “cripple themselves with debt”.

Ward LJ’s comments, whilst persuasive, are obiter and it therefore remains to be seen whether a suitable case and a “bold judge” emerge to tackle this issue head on, as he hopes.  If this aspect of Halsey is overruled, it will be interesting to see how this will affect both the take up of mediation and its success rate. It seems likely that legislation (either adapting CPR 26.4(2)(b) or a new provision entirely) would be desirable to put matters on a clear setting. In any event, forcing a party to mediate is one thing, forcing them to settle is a different matter entirely and is fraught with theoretical and practical difficulties even in cases which are overwhelmingly ripe for mediation.  It is well established that the success of mediation often rests in large part on the parties’ willingness to engage in the process, and as Ward LJ himself acknowledged, “you may be able to drag the horse (a mule offers a better metaphor) to water, but you cannot force the wretched animal to drink if it stubbornly resists.” The increase in court-annexed mediation pilots in England & Wales (for example in relation to small claims and certain appeals) should be monitored closely and their success analysed in this regard.

Continue reading

Australia: at what stage is it appropriate for the court to refer cases to ADR?

The types of disputes that are amenable to ADR are of course not unlimited. Judges continue to encourage parties to submit a very wide range of disputes to ADR. However, recent case law, and commentary by the Honourable Chief Justice Bathurst, suggest that the courts are also looking at the appropriateness of ADR. This will be gauged not only by the nature of the dispute, but also the level of public interest in the dispute. Michael Mills and Lauren Whitehead in our Sydney office give their views. Continue reading

ECJ issues its opinion in support of Italian mandatory mediation rules

The implementation of new domestic Italian legislation requires parties to engage in mediation as a pre-condition to accessing the Italian courts in many types of disputes. The new legislation coincided with the requirements outlined in the Mediation Directive and was aimed at reducing some of the backlog of over 5 million cases pending in Italy.On 18 March 2010, in the joined cases of Rosalba Alassini and Others (C-317/08 and C-320/08) the ECJ confirmed an opinion previously given by the Advocate General, that requiring a dispute to be subject to an out of court settlement procedure before being heard in court was not precluded by EU law. Continue reading

Compulsory mediation launched in Italy’s civil courts

The long-awaited legislative decree addressing “mediation aimed at conciliation of civil and commercial disputes” came into effect on 20 March. The driving force behind the law is to reduce the back log of civil cases pending in Italy, which has reached 5.4 million. The Italian government is strongly relying on mediation to eliminate at least 1 million disputes per year. Continue reading