header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

The final demise of Halsey? Pt 2

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
15 October 2021 / Tony Allen
Issue: 7952 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR , Mediation
printer mail-detail
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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll