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.
