header-logo header-logo

05 June 2008 / Duncan Henderson
Issue: 7324 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Unsettling questions

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll