header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 October 2021 / Tony Allen
Issue: 7952 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Mediation
printer mail-detail

The final demise of Halsey? Pt 2

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
60705
Tony Allen continues his series on the future of dispute resolution by exploring the concept (& reality) of compulsory ADR
  • Is it now ‘legal’ for a court to order alternative dispute resolution (ADR)?
  • How courts might approach the question of ordering DR and imposing sanctions if ignored.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) report, Compulsory ADR, published in June 2021 raises a significant challenge to the correctness of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] All ER (D) 125 (May) over its assertion that for a court to order (A)DR breaches the ECHR Art 6 right to a public trial. It looks first at the theoretical legality of ordering (A)DR (and thus whether Halsey was in this respect wrong): it then looks at the desirability of court-ordered alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Its answer to the theoretical legality of court-ordered ADR is firmly that such orders are legal. Deweer v Belgium 1980 EHRR 439 is waved away as not really being relevant.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll