header-logo header-logo

Compulsory ADR: no longer alternative?

11 August 2023 / Thomas H Curran
Issue: 8037 / Categories: Features , Profession , ADR , International
printer mail-detail
133389
Mechanisms for mandatory alternative dispute resolution are already commonplace around the world: is it finally the turn of England & Wales? Thomas H Curran considers the changing landscape ahead
  • In 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust that compulsory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) unacceptably restricts rights of access to the courts. Halsey will finally be reconsidered by the courts later this year.
  • Courts throughout Europe and the Americas have already introduced measures to encourage and even require litigants to participate in various ADR processes.

On the heels of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) report on compulsory alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which ultimately concluded that compulsory ADR is both legal and to be encouraged under the laws of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos made it clear that ‘ADR should no longer be viewed as an “alternative” but as an integral part of the dispute resolution process; that process should focus on “resolution” rather than “dispute”’.

Now,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll