ADR June 26, 2009
Posted by Richard Moorhead in : ADR, Costs, Jackson Review , trackbackLord Justice Jackson does not appear minded to suggest steps to strengthen the role of ADR in civil disputes. His tentative view is that parties in commercial cases can be relied on to take decisions in their own interests and that there might be more done to improve the consumer education on and delivery of ADR for ‘other parties’ (para. 6.33 onwards, page 444).
Comments»
I’m not sure what evidence Jackson LJ relied on to reach his view – it may be in the report. What about cases where one party unreasonably refuses mediation? Or the lawyer is ignorant of or biased against the mediation procedure?
How is consumer education to be delivered? What support is the government going to give to mediation providers who are already attempting to engage with public in this process of education?
Hello Phillip thanks for posting and apologies for the delay (I’ve been away from the office for an extended period and am catching up). I would have thought the main research relied on was Hazel Genn’s Twisting Arms report. My reading of Hazel’s report is that compulsion into ADR is counter productive (in costs and other terms) and that pushing parties too hard towards ADR processes may also increase costs especially for lower value cases (which mainly settle anyway).
I don’t think Jackson’s report is anti-ADR, indeed as you know I am sure, he does want suggestions on how to promote it to less sophisticated clients.