ADRandCivilJustice
CJCADRWorkingGroup
InterimReport
October2017
TABLEOFCONTENTS
SECTION1:INTRODUCTION................................................................................................4
BackgroundtoCreationofWorkingParty.......................................................................4
TheBriggsProposalsonADR............................................................................................5
SECTION2:EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................7
SECTION3:OURAPPROACHANDTHESCOPEOFOURWORK.............................................9 PreActionADRatsource...............................................................................................10
PreactionADRatthecommencementofproceedings................................................10
ConcurrentADR..............................................................................................................11
ValueofDispute.............................................................................................................11
TheformofADR.............................................................................................................12
Whoaretheneutrals?....................................................................................................13
Theciviljusticecaseload...............................................................................................13
Thechallenge..................................................................................................................13
SECTION4:THELANDSCAPEOFADRPROVISIONINENGLANDANDWALES.....................15
(1) ConsumerConciliationandOmbudsmen..............................................................15
(2) Mediation..............................................................................................................16
(3) TheRTAportal.......................................................................................................21
(4) JudicialENE............................................................................................................21
(5) OnlineDisputeResolution.....................................................................................21
SECTION5:CURRENTMEASURESFORTHEENCOURAGEMENTOFADR............................24
PreactionADR...............................................................................................................24
EncouragingPreActionADRatSource..........................................................................24
EncouragingpreactionADRatthecommencementofproceedings...........................25
PreActionprotocols.......................................................................................................25
OtherHMCTSguidancedocumentsforlitigants............................................................28
ConcurrentADR..............................................................................................................30
SECTION6:OTHERDOMESTICADRSYSTEMS....................................................................37 FamilyMediation............................................................................................................37
FamilyMIAMs.................................................................................................................38
FDRs................................................................................................................................39
2
EmploymentDisputesandConciliation .........................................................................39
SECTION7:OVERSEASADRSYSTEMS...............................................................................41
Europe............................................................................................................................42
USA.................................................................................................................................42
Australia..........................................................................................................................43
Canada............................................................................................................................43
Internationalexperienceofsettlementratesincompulsorysystems..........................43
SECTION8:COMPULSIONORPERSUASION......................................................................45 SECTION9:INTERIMRECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................51
MakingADRculturallynormal........................................................................................52
EncouragingADRatsourcebeforelegalproceedingsarecontemplated.....................53
EncouragingorrequiringADRwhenproceedingsareincontemplation......................54
EncouragingADRduringthecourseoftheproceedings...............................................57
Costssanctions ...............................................................................................................60
ADRandthemiddlebracket..........................................................................................60
Lowvaluecases/litigantswithoutmeans......................................................................61
Theonlineopportunity...................................................................................................62
Agreaterroleforconciliation/ombudsmenduringthecurrencyofproceedings.........63
ChallengesforJudicialENE.............................................................................................64
ChallengesforOnlineDisputeResolution......................................................................64
ChallengesforMediation...............................................................................................65
SECTION10:QUESTIONSFORCONSULTATION.................................................................66
MakingADRculturallynormal........................................................................................66
APPENDIX1:ASUMMARYOFTHECCSRPROPOSALS.......................................................70
APPENDIX2:MEDIATION:FOREIGNEXPERIENCES............................................................72
APPENDIX3:THEBRITISHCOLUMBIANOTICETOMEDIATEPROCEDURE.........................87
APPENDIX4:ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................96
APPENDIX5:WORKINGGROUPCVS.................................................................................97
3
SECTION1:INTRODUCTION
SECTION1:INTRODUCTION1.1. TheCivilJusticeCouncilresolvedatitsmeetingon28th January2016toformaWorking
Group to review theways inwhich ADR is at present encouraged and positionedwithintheciviljusticesysteminEnglandandWales.Thisistheinterimreportofthat workinggroup.
1.2. ThetermsofreferenceoftheWorkingGroupwere:
1.2.1 To review existing forms of encouragement for mediation (and othersuitableformsofADR)in civilcasesin theCivilProcedureRules,caselawandthepowersofthecourt.
1.2.2 Toconsideralternativeapproachestoencouragetheuseofmediation(andother suitable formsofADR) in civil disputes, includingpractices inotherjurisdictions.
1.2.3 Toassessproposalsforreformsto therulesorforinitiatives thatmightbe takenoutside theformalrules.
1.2.4 Tomonitorandcontributetotheforthcomingreview oftheEUMediationDirective.
1.3. ThemembersoftheWorkingGroupare:
WilliamWoodQC (Chair) theADRrepresentative ontheCJC, a commercial mediatorinpracticeatBrickCourtChambers
TonyAllen,amediatorspecialisinginmedicalandpersonalinjurymatters,a writerandcommentatoronmediationmattersandaconsultanttoCEDR
ProfessorNeilAndrews ProfessorofCivilJusticeandPrivateLawatCambridgeUniversity
GrahamRoss, amediator and specialist inODR, amemberof the SusskindworkingpartyonODR
DistrictJudgeLumb,basedinBirmingham,specialisinginthemanagementofmajormedicalandpersonalinjurylitigation
StephenLawson,alitigationsolicitor,partnerinthefirmofFDRLawbasedinWarrington,specialisingincontentiousprobate.
TheWorkingGrouphashadtheinvaluableassistanceofPeterFarr(assecretary)andalsoAndreaDowsettandAlexandraMorton. Ourverysincerethankstothem.
BackgroundtoCreationofWorkingGroup
1.4. Weunderstandthefollowingamongstotherconsiderationspromptedthesettingup ofthisWorkingGroup.
4
SECTION1:INTRODUCTION
1.4.1 Relativelylow levelsofawarenessofADRwerefoundduringtheMOJCourt UsersSurvey2015. Moregenerallythereisaperceptionthattherearestillmany civil disputes in which ADR techniques are not sufficiently used, perhapsparticularlythosedisputesabovethesmallclaimsbracket whosevalue is insufficient tomake a full onedaymediationproportionate andappropriate.
1.4.2 Lessons may be learnt from the other quite different models for the encouragementofADRthatareevidentinotherpartsofthejusticesystem,notablyinfamilydisputesandemploymentdisputes.
1.4.3 Usefuloverseasexperiencemay beavailableastothewayinwhichothercountriesencouragetheuseofADR.
1.4.4 TheEUCommissionwasatthetimeconductinga reviewoftheworkingoftheEUMediationDirective (2008/S2/EC).Asaprecursor tothisexercise, the EuropeanParliamenthadearliercommissionedastudywhich hasbeenpublished under the heading ReBooting the Mediation Directive:Assessing The Limited Impact of its Implementation and ProposingMeasurestoIncreasetheNumberofMediationsintheEU,2014. 1
1.5. TheWorkingGrouphasreliedprincipallyonthecombinedexperienceofitsmem
