header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 June 2008 / Duncan Henderson
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Unsettling questions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Refusing to mediate can be a dangerous and expensive option, says Duncan Henderson

New versions of the allocation questionnaire used in civil proceedings in England and Wales (forms N150 and N151) were published on 1 April 2008. Section A dealing with settlement has been expanded in each case. The amendments were not mentioned in the 46th update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The new s A is clearly designed to stimulate change in the behaviour of litigants and their advisers towards alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and in particular mediation.

Any practitioner advising a client against trying to settle a claim at the pre-allocation stage (before the hearing) now has to give and put on record justifiable reasons for the answer, and any client who wants to say “no” for reasons which are not justifiable (or to leave the box blank because there is no good reason for refusal) will have to be warned of the costs penalties which an unreasonable refusal to go to ADR may attract.

Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust
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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll