header-logo header-logo

Mediation: a compelling case?

04 February 2022 / Paul Dorrans , Camilla Pratt
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
71108
With the judiciary’s increasing willingness to be flexible on compulsory ADR, Paul Dorrans & Camilla Pratt look ahead to what may come next
  • The scope of the order made by Master Davidson in which the parties were directed to ‘meaningfully’ engage in mediation, and were permitted to rely on evidence of the parties’ conduct in mediation in support of an application on costs.
  • Existing trends and procedural mechanisms to facilitate alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
  • The issue of compulsion in mediation.
  • Issues to consider for the future.

Innovation and creativity are central to success in mediation. It is perhaps no surprise then to see the same qualities reflected in a novel order made before Christmas 2021 by Master Davidson, in which the parties were directed to ‘meaningfully’ engage in mediation and given the ability to police compliance with the order by reference to conduct in the mediation itself.

Although the order was made by consent, its text is significant and reflects a growing trend towards the enhanced use of innovative

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll