header-logo header-logo

26 May 2011 / Emily Lew , David Phillips
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Mediation
printer mail-detail

At cross purposes?

David Phillips & Emily Lew discuss the merits & limitations of the EU Mediation Directive

The EU Directive on mediation in civil and commercial matters was adopted by the European Parliament on 23 April 2008. The Directive applies only to European cross-border disputes, rather than to disputes within any one member state and covers five broad areas. These are:

(1) encouragement by member states of mediator training and the development and adherence to a voluntary code of conduct;

(2) judicial powers to invite parties
to mediate;

(3) obligations on member states to ensure mediation settlement agreements are enforceable as if they are court judgments (should all parties consent);

(4) confidentiality of mediations such that submissions made during a mediation cannot be used in subsequent judicial proceedings if the mediation fails; and

(5) the suspension of limitation periods while parties mediate.

EU member states (except Denmark, which has opted out) had until 21 May 2011 to implement the new rules into national law. Estonia, France, Italy and Portugal have already notified the Commission that they have implemented

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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll