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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll