header-logo header-logo

Inside mediation

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll