Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Encouragement of mediation in England and Wales has been futile: is there now a role for online dispute resolution in settling low-value claims?

  • Sue Prince (a1)

Abstract

In England and Wales, the judiciary, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have embarked on an ambitious reform whose aims are to radically transform and restructure court services and introduce digital justice for the overall purpose of improving access to justice in relation to the resolution of disputes. The reality in the courts of England and Wales is that the current reform means automation of processes. Digital transformation offers a real chance to improve access to justice particularly for low-value claims where a simplified process is more proportionate to the value of the dispute. This paper argues therefore that, for everyday low-value civil disputes, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes should be at the core of any design. In addition, fashioning new means to deliver access to justice should not just be about increasing government efficiency, but also about using technology to design and create innovative, new, agile and ‘user-centric’ pathways.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. E-mail: S.J.Prince@exeter.ac.uk

References

Hide All
Ahmed, M (2012) Implied compulsory mediation. Civil Justice Quarterly 31, 151175.
Ahmed, M (2015) Bridging the gap between alternative dispute resolution and robust adverse cost orders. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 66, 7192.
Ahmed, M (2018) Mediation: the need for a united, clear and consistent judicial voice. Civil Justice Quarterly 37, 1319.
Ali, SF (2019) Civil mediation reform: balancing the scales of procedural and substantive justice. Civil Justice Quarterly 38, 931.
Bowcott, O (2018) Court closures: sale of 126 premises raised just £34M, figures show, The Guardian, 8 March. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/mar/08/court-closures-people-facing-days-travel-to-attend-hearings (accessed 20 January 2020).
Briggs, M (2013) Chancery Modernisation Review, Final Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.
Briggs, M (2015) Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.
Briggs, M (2016) Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.
Brooke, H (2004) The legal and policy implications of courtroom technology: the emerging English experience. William and Mary Rights Journal 12, 699714.
Burnett, I (2018) First International Forum on Online Courts: The Cutting Edge of Digital Reform. London, 4 December 2018. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/speech-lcj-online-court.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Cappelletti, M et al. (1982) Access to justice: variations and continuity of a world-wide movement. The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 46, 664707.
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (2018) 8th Mediation Audit. London: CEDR. Available at https://www.cedr.com/foundation/mediation-audit/ (accessed 20 January 2020).
Civil Justice Council (CJC) ADR Working Group (2018) ADR and Civil Justice: Final Report. London: CJC. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CJC-ADRWG-Report-FINAL-Dec-2018.pdf (accessed 20 January 2019).
Civil Justice Council (CJC) Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group (2015) Online Dispute Resolution for Low-Value Civil Claims. London: CJC. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Cloke, K (2008) Conflict Resolution. Santa Ana, CA: Janis Publications.
Court Service (2002) Modernising the Civil and Family Courts: Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme. London: Court Service.
de Girolamo, D (2016) Rhetoric and civil justice: a commentary on the promotion of mediation without conviction in England and Wales. Civil Justice Quarterly 67, 162185.
Economides, K (1980) Small claims and procedural justice. British Journal of Law and Society 7, 111121.
Etherton, T (2019) Rule-Making for a Digital Court Process, Civil Procedure Rules 20th Anniversary Conference, Oxford, 27 June 2019. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/mr-oxford-cpr-conference-june-19.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) (2018) Annual Review 2017/18. Available at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/2023/full-review.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Fiss, O (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law Journal 93, 10731090.
Fouzder, M (2018) Intuitive online service for small claims goes live. Law Society Gazette 11. Available at https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/intuitive-online-service-for-small-claims-goes-live/5065556.article (accessed 20 January 2020).
Genn, H (2008) Judging civil justice. Hamlyn Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genn, H (2012) What is civil justice for? Reform, ADR and access to Justice. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 24, 397417.
Gove, M (2015) What does a one nation justice policy look like? Speech to Legatum Institute, London, 23 June 2015. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/what-does-a-one-nation-justice-policy-look-like (accessed 20 January 2020).
Hagan, MD (2018) A human-centred design approach to access to justice: generating new prototypes and hypotheses for intervention to make courts user-friendly. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality 6, 199239.
Hart, HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review 71, 593629.
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (2019) Reform update. Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hmcts-reform-update-civil. (accessed 20 January2020).
House of Commons Justice Committee (2019) Court and Tribunal Reforms, 2nd Report of Session 2019, HC190. London: HMSO.
Howarth, D (2014) Law as Engineering. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jackson, R (2009) Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report. London: The Stationery Office.
Jackson, R (2010) Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report. London: The Stationery Office.
JUSTICE (2015) Delivering justice in an age of austerity. Available at https://justice.org.uk/justice-age-austerity-2/ (accessed 20 January 2020).
JUSTICE (2016) What is a court? Available at https://justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JUSTICE-What-is-a-Court-Report-2016.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
JUSTICE (2018) Preventing digital exclusion from online justice. Available at https://justice.org.uk/our-work/assisted-digital/ (accessed 20 January 2020).
Katsh, K and Rabinovich-Einy, O (2017) Digital Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legatt, A (2001) Tribunals for Users: One System One Service. Report of the Review of Tribunals. London: HMSO.
Lord Chancellor et al. (2016) Transforming Our Justice System: Joint Vision Statement. Cm9391. London: HMSO.
Menkel-Meadows, C (1996) The trouble with the adversary system in a postmodern, multicultural world. William & Mary Law Review 38, 544.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2012) Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler Quicker and More Proportionate System. Cm 8274. London: HMSO.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2017) Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: Post-Legislative Memorandum. Cm 9486. London: HMSO.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2018) Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly (accessed 20 January 2020).
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2019a) Family Court Statistics Quarterly. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly (accessed 20 January 2020).
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2019b) Legal Support: The Way Ahead. CP 40. London: HMSO.
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2019c) Post-Implementation Review of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). CP37. London: HMSO.
National, Audit Office (2018) HMCTS: Early Progress in Transforming Courts and Tribunals. Session 2017–19. HC101. London: HMSO.
Neuberger, D (2010) Equity, ADR, arbitration and the law: different dimensions of justice, Fourth Keating Lecture, Lincoln's Inn, London, 19 May 2010. Available at https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-170703.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Neuberger, D (2017) Access to justice, welcome address to the Australian Bar Association Biennial Conference, London, 3 July 2017. Available at https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-170703.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Organ, J and Sigafoos, J (2018) The Impact of LASPO on Routes to Justice. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available at https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/the-impact-of-laspo-on-routes-to-justice-september-2018.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Prince, S (2007) Mediating small claims: are we on the right track? Civil Justice Quarterly 26, 328340.
Prince, S (2019) Fine words butter no parsnips: can the principle of open justice survive the introduction of the online court? Civil Justice Quarterly 38, 111125.
Quek, D (2010) Mandatory mediation: an oxymoron? Examining the feasibility of implementing a court-based mediation programme. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 11, 479509.
Rabinovich-Einy, O and Katsh, E (2014) Digital justice: reshaping boundaries in an online dispute resolution environment. International Journal of Dispute Resolution 1, 536.
Roberge, J (2019) Justicial judging: towards a renewal in problem-solving access to justice. Civil Justice Quarterly 38, 3243.
Ryder, E (2018) Securing Open Justice, Luxembourg, 2 February 2018. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/speech-by-sir-ernest-ryder-senior-president-of-tribunals-securing-open-justice/ (accessed 20 January 2020).
Salter, S (2017) Online dispute resolution and justice system integration: British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal. Windsor Year Book of Access to Justice 34, 112129.
Salter, S and Thompson, D (2016–2017) Public-centred civil justice redesign: a case study of the British Columbian Civil Justice Tribunal. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 3, 113153.
Sanders, F (1976) Varieties of dispute resolution. Federal Rules Decisions 70, 130131.
Smith, M et al. (2013) Bridging the empirical gap: new insights into the experience of multiple legal problems and advice seeking. Journal of Empirical Studies 10, 146170.
Sorabji, J (2012) The road to new street station: fact, fiction and the overriding objective. European Business Law Review 1, 177.
Susskind, R (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J (2016) Developing commercial law through the courts: rebalancing the relationship between the courts and arbitration, The Bailii Lecture, London, 9 March 2016. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/lcj-speech-bailli-lecture-20160309.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Traffic Penalty Tribunal (2016–2017) Annual Statistics Report 2016/17. London. Available at https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/docs/TPT_Annual_Statistics_Report_16_17.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Trinder, EJ et al. (2017) Finding Fault: Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales. London: Nuffield Foundation. Available at https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Finding_Fault_full_report_v_FINAL.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).
Tyler, TR (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30, 283357.
Van, Loo R (2016) The Corporation as courthouse. Yale J on Regulation 33, 547602.
Woolf, H (1995) Access to Justice Interim Report. London: HMSO.
Woolf, H (1996) Access to Justice Final Report. London: HMSO.

Keywords

Encouragement of mediation in England and Wales has been futile: is there now a role for online dispute resolution in settling low-value claims?

  • Sue Prince (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.