Roger Smith assesses civil justice reform at home and abroad
Dame Hazel Genn, newly appointed as dean of University College London’s law department, last month delivered three sparkling Hamlyn lectures that pleaded the cause of civil justice with some vigour. She was particularly waspish about mediation, to which she devoted a whole lecture. It was, she said, “not just about settlement: it is just about settlement”.
Her criticism of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is particularly damning because Dame Hazel is a long-time serious researcher in the field. She published a study of out of court settlement in personal injury cases in 1987 and was responsible for no less than three studies on mediation for the Ministry of Justice since 1998. But now she has had enough. The “growing ADR profession” is building up a practice at the lucrative top end of commercial disputes, ignoring smaller claims. Meanwhile, the government seeks to encourage ADR simply to keep down legal aid costs. Civil justice reform has become dominated by the desire to divert cases from
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
