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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll