Jackson on ADR: not enough?

Mediation Group CEDR (the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) is calling on Lord Justice Jackson to adopt a “more hard-edged approach” to alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Jackson LJ gave a ringing endorsement of ADR in his final report on civil litigation costs earlier this month, but stopped short of advocating any rule changes.

Instead, he recommended a “serious campaign” to “ensure that litigation lawyers and judges are properly informed about the benefits which ADR can bring” and “to alert the public and small businesses to the benefits of ADR”.
He recommended that an authoritative handbook be prepared, explaining what ADR is and giving details of mediation providers. This should then become the standard handbook for use at all Judicial Studies Board seminars and CPD training sessions concerning mediation.

The “most realistic approach” to raising public awareness, he said, would be to supply “every litigant in every case” with a simple brochure on ADR.
Karl Mackie, chief executive of mediation group CEDR, said: “In the last twenty years, and particularly in the last ten since the Civil Procedure Rules, ADR and Mediation have developed considerably in the UK.

“CEDR welcome his support for additional campaigning and education to promote the use of ADR services, and the production of a guide that will help this to be achieved. This is timely in that the recommendations are in line with the recent EU Directive on mediation, which member states need to implement for cross-border disputes early in 2011. Additionally we would have liked Sir Rupert to have also taken the opportunity to propose a test of some more hard-edged approaches on ADR and costs and will press for inclusion of such matters during the debate over implementation of his recommendations.”

In his final report, Jackson LJ acknowledges that the benefits of ADR were “not fully appreciated” either by small businesses or the general public. While there was a “widespread belief” that mediation was not suitable for personal injury cases, he said, this belief was incorrect although mediators in those cases had to have specialist knowledge. Parties to a dispute should never be compelled to mediate, he said, although judges should encourage it and penalise in costs parties which have unreasonably refused to mediate.