header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007 / Chloe Carswell
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Features , Mediation
printer mail-detail

Inside mediation

When will courts waive the without prejudice rule for mediation? Chloe Carswell reports

The courts have wholeheartedly embraced mediation since it was enshrined in the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. Case law including Dunnett v Railtrack plc (in railway administration) [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 2 All ER 850 and Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358, [2005] All ER (D) 62 (Apr) demonstrates that the courts will not hesitate to apply costs sanctions to parties who unreasonably refuse to mediate.

The benefits of mediation are clear. It is a flexible process with a neutral third party who tries to facilitate a settlement of the dispute. It is a (relatively) cheap and swift method of dispute resolution which allows for creative solutions not otherwise available through the courts, and which allows for quasi-direct negotiation between parties. Perhaps most importantly, it is confidential, without prejudice and non-binding—unless and until there is a signed settlement agreement.

A FORM OF PRIVILEGE

The “without prejudice” rule exists to encourage parties to reach a settlement of a dispute without fear

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll