Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The role of the English courts in alternative dispute resolution

  • AKC Koo (a1)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the interaction between the court and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the legal administration of civil justice. It addresses the following questions. What is the relationship between ADR and the concept of justice? How do we make sense of the anti-ADR views, in particular the serious threat to the rule of law? What role does, and should, the court play in alternative processes? It argues that integrating ADR into the court system broadens the notion of justice and its access, and that, under the rule of law, judges should play a more central role to ensure the use, quality and integrity of alternative processes. This paper extends our understanding of the relationship among justice, ADR and the court from an internal perspective. It also points out the need to expand the case management responsibilities of judges, and their delegates in the Online Court, on ADR.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Author email: akc.koo@law.ox.ac.uk

Footnotes

Hide All

The paper has greatly benefited from comment by Dr Andrew Higgins and two anonymous reviewers.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1 Woolf, Lord Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (Lord Chancellor's Department, 1995); Woolf, Lord Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (HMSO, 1996).

2 Jackson, Lord Justice Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Preliminary Report (TSO, 2009); Jackson, Lord Justice Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (TSO, 2010).

3 Lord Justice Briggs Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report (2015); Lord Justice Briggs Civil Cour ts Structure Review: Final Report (2016).

4 Woolf Interim Report, above n 1, introduction.

5 Jackson Preliminary Report, above n 2, ch 1 para 2.1.

6 Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Senior Judiciary Announces Review of Fixed Recoverable Costs (11 November 2016), available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/announcements/senior-judiciary-announces-review-of-fixed-recoverable-costs/ (last accessed 9 July 2018); Lord Justice Jackson ‘The review of fixed recoverable costs’ (Costs Conference, 2017).

7 Briggs Interim Report, above n 3, para 5.23.

8 Briggs Final Report, above n 3, para 12.15.

9 The Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunal Transforming Our Justice System (2016); J Rozenberg The Online Court: Will it Work? (2017), available at https://long-reads.thelegaleducationfoundation.org.

10 CPR 1.4(2)(e).

11 CPR 1.4(2)(g), (l).

12 CPR 3.1(ll), 3.12–3.21; Pt 45; PD 3E; PD 3F; PD 45.

13 CPR 44.2; Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 14(c), 15(c), 16.

14 Fiss, OMAgainst settlement’ (1984) 93 Yale Law Journal 1073; Genn, HWhat is civil justice for? Reform, ADR, and access to justice’ (2012) 24(1) Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 397.

15 Abel, RLDelegalization’ in von Erhard Blankenburg, H, Klausa, E and Rottleuthner, H assisted by Rogowski, R Alternative Rechtsformen und Alternativen zum Recht (West-deutscher Verlag, 1980); Abel, RLConservative conflict and the reproduction of capitalism’ (1981) 9(3) International Journal of the Sociology and Law 245; Abel, RLThe contradiction of informal justice’ in Abel, RL (ed) The Politics of Informal Justice: The American Experience (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Auerbach, JS Justice Without Law? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); R Hofrichter ‘Neighborhood justice and the social control problems of American capitalism: a perspective’ in Abel (1982), above.

16 H Genn ‘Why the privatisation of civil justice is a rule of law issue’ (FA Mann Lecture, Lincoln's Inn, 2012); J Gardner ‘The twilight of legality’ (Irvine Lecture, Cornell Law School, 2015).

17 Genn, H The Central London County Court Pilot Mediation Scheme: Evaluation Report (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 1998); M Doyle ‘Evaluation of the small claims mediation service at Manchester county court’ (2006); J Enterkin and M Sefton ‘An evaluation of the Exeter small claims mediation scheme’ (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006); S Prince ‘An evaluation of the small claims dispute resolution pilot at Exeter county court’ (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006); S Prince and S Belcher ‘An evaluation of the effectiveness of court-based mediation processes in non-family civil proceedings at Exeter and Guildford county courts’ (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006); L Webley, P Abrams and S Bacquet ‘Evaluation of the Birmingham court-based civil (non-family) mediation scheme’ (London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2006); H Genn et al ‘Twisting arms: court referred and court linked mediation under judicial pressure’ (London: Ministry of Justice, 2007); P Urwin et al ‘Evaluating the use of judicial mediation in employment tribunals’ (London: Ministry of Justice, 2010); Tyler, TRProcedural justice’ in Sarat, A (ed) The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004).

18 Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002; Koo, AKCTen years after Halsey’ (2015) 34(1) Civil Justice Quarterly 77.

19 Koo, above n 18; Viva! Campaigns Ltd v Scott (Costs) [2013] EWHC 3639 (Ch); NJ Rickard Ltd v Holloway [2015] EWCA Civ 1631; Inchbald v Inchbald [2017] EWHC 616 (Ch); Gerrards Cross Leisure Services Ltd v Shizentai Health and Exercise Ltd (County Court (Oxford), 23 January 2017, unreported); Thakkar v Patel [2017] EWCA Civ 117.

20 Zuckerman, AAS Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edn, 2013) para 1.17.

21 Main, TOADR: the new equity’ (2005) 74 University of Cincinnati Law Review 329; Atiyah, PSFrom principles to pragmatism: changes in the function of the judicial process and the law’ (1980) 65 Iowa Law Review 1249.

22 Fiss, above n 14; Genn, above n 14; Tyler, above n 17; Abel ‘Delegalization’, above n 15; Abel (1981), above n 15; Abel, ‘The contradiction of informal justice’, above n 15; Auerbach, above n 15; Genn, H Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

23 Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group ‘ADR and civil justice: interim report’ (2017); Transforming Our Justice System, above n 9; Rozenberg, above n 9.

24 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 8; Blake, SH, Browne, J and Sime, S The Jackson ADR Handbook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2016) ch 1B.

25 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 8, 10.

26 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 10; Blake, Browne and Sime, above n 24, ch 2.

27 M LeBar and M Slote ‘Justice as a virtue’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016), available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/ (last accessed 23 July 2018).

28 Cupit, G Justice as Fittingness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) ch 1, abstract.

29 LeBar and Slote, above n 27; Jacob, JIH The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens & Sons, 1987) p 3; Jacob, JIHJustice between man and man’ (1985) 51(3) Arbitration 463 at 468–473.

30 Jacob (1987), above n 29, pp 2–3.

31 Jacob (1987), above n 29, p 2.

32 Jacob (1985), above n 29, at 467.

33 Jacob (1985), above n 29, at 468.

34 Jacob (1985), above n 29, at 468.

35 Jacob (1985), above n 29, at 468.

36 Zander, M The State of Justice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) p 27.

37 Zuckerman, above n 20, at para 1.5.

38 Ibid.

39 Lord Neuberger ‘Equity, ADR, arbitration and the law: different dimensions of justice’ (Keating Lecture, Lincoln's Inn, 2010) para 6.

40 Ibid.

41 Jacob (1987), above n 29, p 66.

42 Sorabji, J English Civil Justice after the Woolf and Jackson Reforms: A Critical Analysis (Cambridge: CUP, 2014) ch 1.

43 Cappelletti, MAlternative dispute resolution processes within the framework of the world-wide access-to-justice movement’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 282, 283284.

44 Cappelletti, above n 43, at 284.

45 Cappelletti, above n 43, at 287.

46 Woolf Interim Report, above n 1, introduction, chs 1, 3, 4, 18, para 1.

47 Jackson Final Report, above n 2, glossary, introduction para 1.1.

48 C Grayling ‘Reform of the courts and tribunals’, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chris-grayling-reform-of-the-courts-and-tribunals (last accessed 23 July 2018).

49 Transforming Our Justice System, above n 9, at 5; HM Treasury ‘Spending review and Autumn statement 2015’ para 1.282.

50 Sorabji, above n 42, ch 1.

51 Ibid.

52 Sorabji, JProspects for proportionality: Jackson implementation’ (2013) 32(2) Civil Justice Quarterly 213.

53 CPR 1.1(1), (2)(a), (d).

54 CPR 1.1(1), (2)(b)–(e).

55 Zuckerman, above n 20, paras 1.17, 1.19.

56 CPR 1.1, 1.3; Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 8–9; Allocation Questionnaire Form N150; Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track) Form N180; Directions Questionnaire (Fast and Multi-Track) Form N181.

57 Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group, above n 23, paras 3.25–3.26.

58 Ibid.

59 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 13–14; CPR 44.2(4), (5).

60 CPR 1.4(2)(e).

61 CPR 3.1(2)(m); Seals and Seals v Williams [2015] EWHC 1829 (Ch).

62 Sir Terence Etherton MR ‘The civil court of the future’ (Lord Slynn Memorial Lecture, Royal Courts of Justice, 2017) para 26; Sorabji, JThe online solutions court – a multi-door courthouse for the 21st century’ (2017) 36(1) Civil Justice Quarterly 86.

63 Etherton, above n 62, paras 23, 25, 27; Briggs ‘Interim Report’, above n 3, paras 6.7–6.14; Briggs ‘Final Report’, above n 3, paras 6.108–6.114, 7.22–7.23.

64 Civil Justice Council Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims’ (2015); Briggs ‘Final Report’, above n 3, paras 6.92–6.102.

65 Etherton, above n 62, para 30.

66 Fiss, above n 14, at 1085.

67 Ibid.

68 Genn, above n 14, at 411; Genn, above n 22, p 116–117.

69 Genn, above n 22, p 118–119.

70 M Ahmed ‘A critical view of stage 1 of the online court’ (2017) 36(1) Civil Justice Quarterly 12; Sorabji, above n 62.

71 Sorabji, above n 62.

72 Ibid.

73 Briggs ‘Final Report’, above n 3, paras 7.22–7.23.

74 Tyler, above n 17.

75 Directive 2013/11/EU on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes and Amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on Consumer ADR) [2013] OJ L165/63.

76 Zuckerman, above n 20, ch 3.

77 Directive on Consumer ADR, above n 75, recital 39; Art 7(1).

78 Directive on Consumer ADR, above n 75, recital 41; Art 8(a), (b).

79 Directive on Consumer ADR, above n 75, recital 39; Art 8(c).

80 Directive on Consumer ADR, above n 75, recital 40; Art 8(e).

81 Directive on Consumer ADR, above n 75, recital 54; Art 16.

82 Neuberger, above n 39, para 27.

83 Abel, ‘Delegalization’, above n 15; Abel (1981), above n 15; Abel ‘The contradiction of informal justice’, n 15; Auerbach, above n 15; Hofrichter, above n 15; Fiss, above n 14.

84 Fiss, above n 14; Genn, above n 14; Genn, above n 22; Neuberger, above n 39; Gardner, above n 16.

85 Allison, JRIdeology, prejudgment, and process values’ (1994) 28 New England Law Review 657 at 680.

86 Woolf Interim Report, above n 1, ch 18, para 2.

87 Allison, above n 85, at 679; Summers, RSEvaluating and improving legal processes – a plea for “process values”’ (1974) 60(1) Cornell Law Review 1 at 27.

88 Summers, above n 87, at 24.

89 Summers, above n 87, at 20–21.

90 Summers, above n 87, at 22–23.

91 Summers, above n 87, at 35–36.

92 Jackson Preliminary Report, above n 2, pt 1, paras 2.2, 2.3, 2.6; Allison, above n 85, at 679; Summers, above n 87, at 20–21.

93 Genn, above n 22, chs 2–3.

94 Institute for Fiscal Studies ‘Recent cuts to public spending’, available at https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/cuts_to_public_spending (last accessed 23 July 2018).

95 Lord Chancellor's Department Modernising Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reforming Legal Services and the Courts (Stationery Office, 1998).

96 Access to Justice Act 1999, ss 1, 4, 12.

97 Access to Justice Act 1999, s 8.

98 Legal Services Commission ‘Funding code’ (2010) para 5.4.3.

99 Legal Services Commission ‘Funding code: decision-making guidance’ (2010) para 3C-091.

100 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, s 38(1).

101 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Sch 1 Pt 2.

102 Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/104, regs 36(1), 39(d), 53(b).

103 Transforming Our Justice System, above n 9, at 11.

104 Allison, above n 85, at 671–680.

105 Fiss, above n 14, at 1089.

106 Ibid, at 1078.

107 Ibid, at 1067.

108 Ibid, at 1067.

109 CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b), (c)(iv).

110 Zuckerman, above n 20, para 3.155.

111 Fiss, above n 14, at 1078–1080.

112 Ibid, at 1081.

113 Ibid, at 1081.

114 Ibid, at 1080.

115 Ibid, at 1083.

116 Ibid, at 1084.

117 Ibid, at 1082.

118 Ibid, at 1085.

119 Genn, above n 14, at 411; Genn, above n 22, pp 116–117.

120 Abel ‘Delegalization’, above n 15; Abel (1981), above n 15; Abel ‘The contradiction of informal justice’, above n 15; Auerbach, above n 15; Hofrichter, above n 15.

121 Abel (1981), above n 15, at 256–257.

122 Abel ‘Delegalization’, above n 15, at 40, 42.

123 Abel (1981), above n 15, at 280; Auerbach, above n 15, p 144.

124 Abel (1981), above n 15, at 272–274.

125 Hofrichter, above n 15, pp 237, 239.

126 Genn, above n 16, at 17–21; Briggs ‘Interim Report’, above n 3, para 2.23.

127 Fiss, above n 14, 1085.

128 Genn, above n 16, at 19.

129 Genn, above n 16, at 15–17; Genn, above n 22, p 21; Briggs ‘Interim Report’, above n 3, at para 2.23.

130 Genn, above n 22, p 23.

131 Neuberger, above n 39, para 6; Genn, above n 22, pp 20–24; Genn, above n 16, at 3, 21.

132 Neuberger, above n 39, at para 14.

133 A Dorfman and A Harel ‘Against settlement as such’ (2016) 36(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 400, 401.

134 Gardner, above n 16, at 16.

135 Gardner, above n 16, at 16–17.

136 Neuberger, above n 39, para 43.

137 Neuberger, above n 39, para 43; Jackson Preliminary Report, above n 2, ch 4 para 3.2.

138 Jacob (1985), above n 29, at 469.

139 Ministry of Justice ‘Civil justice statistics quarterly, England and Wales, July to September 2016’ (1 December 2016) table 1.1.

140 Felstiner, WFL, Abel, RL and Sarat, AThe emergence and transformation of disputes: naming, blaming, and claiming’ (1980–81) 15(3) Law and Society Review 631.

141 Ibid, at 636.

142 Ibid; Sarat, AExploring the hidden domains of civil justice: “naming, blaming and claiming” in popular culture’ (2001) 50(2) DePaul Law Review 425 at 426–427.

143 Arbitration Act 1996, s 46; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 28.

144 Arbitration Act 1996, s 52(4); UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 31(2).

145 Arbitration Act 1996, s 34(1); UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 19.

146 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013, Arts 17(3), 20–21, 29(5).

147 Arbitration Act 1993, s 33(1)(a); UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013, Art 17(1).

148 Arbitration Act 1993, s 68(2)(a), (3); UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 34(2)(a)(ii), (4). See for example Vee Networks Ltd v Econet Wireless International Ltd [2004] EWHC 2909 (Comm), [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 192; OAO Northern Shipping Co v Remol Cadores De Marin SL ‘Remmar’ [2007] EWHC 1821 (Comm), [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 302.

149 Clyde & Co LLP v Krista Bates van Winkelhof [2011] EWHC 668, [2012] ICR 928.

150 Arbitration Act 1996, s 9; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 8.

151 Arbitration Act 1996, s 18; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 11(4).

152 Arbitration Act 1996, s 32; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Arts 9, 27.

153 Arbitration Act 1996, s 44; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Art 16(3).

154 Arbitration Act 1996, ss 66–68; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Arts 34–36.

155 Arbitration Act 1996, s 69.

156 Guide to Enactment and Use of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, para 6.

157 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, Art 1(3).

158 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, Art 1(3); Guide to Enactment and Use of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, para 6.

159 Fisher, R, Ury, W and Patton, B Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without Giving in (London: Random House, 3rd edn, 2012).

160 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, Art 6(3); Guide to Enactment and Use of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, para 55.

161 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 11, 13.

162 Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 8.

163 Ibid.

164 Halsey, above n 18.

165 CPR 1.4(e); Halsey, above n 18.

166 CPR 3.1(2)(f); Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 15(b).

167 CPR 1.1(2)(d).

168 CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC), [2014] 6 Costs LR 1026.

169 Ibid, at [10].

170 Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 (Ch).

171 R v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, [2002] 1 WLR 803.

172 R v East Sussex County Council [2005] EWHC 585 (Admin).

173 CPR 44.2(4).

174 CPR 44.2(5); Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 11, 13, 14(c), 15(c), 16.

175 Koo, above n 18; Mobiqa Ltd v Trinity Mobile Ltd [2010] EWHC 253 (Pat); Kayll v Rawlinson (Costs) [2010] EWHC 1789 (Ch); Euroption Strategic Fund Ltd v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB [2012] EWHC 749 (Comm); Park Promotion Ltd (t/a Pontypool Rugby Football Club) v Welsh Rugby Union Ltd (QBD, 17 July 2012, unreported); Morris v Davies (ChD, 25 July 2012, unreported); Viva! Campaigns Ltd v Scott (Costs) [2013] EWHC 3639 (Ch); Harrison v Madejski [2014] EWCA Civ 361; Northrop Grumman Mission Systems Europe Ltd v BAE Systems (Al Diriyah C4I) Ltd [2014] EWHC 3148 (TCC); Murray v Bernard [2015] EWHC 2395 (Ch); Morris v Htay (County Court (Kingston upon Hull), 2 February 2015, unreported); NJ Rickard Ltd v Holloway [2015] EWCA Civ 1631; Inchbald v Inchbald [2017] EWHC 616 (Ch); Gerrards Cross Leisure Services Ltd v Shizentai Health and Exercise Ltd (County Court (Oxford), 23 January 2017, unreported); Thakkar v Patel [2017] EWCA Civ 117; MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 127 (QB); Primeview Developments Ltd v Ahmed [2017] UKUT 57 (LC); Car Giant Ltd v Hammersmith LBC [2017] EWHC 464 (TCC); Gore v Naheed [2017] EWCA Civ 369.

176 Halsey, above n 18, at [16].

177 Halsey, above n 18, at [17]–[33].

178 Koo, above n 18.

179 Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group, above n 23.

180 Ibid, para 2.8.

181 Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group, above n 23, paras 9.27–9.38.

182 Halsey, above n 18, at [17].

183 Ibid.

184 Ibid.

185 Soames, SWhat vagueness and inconsistency tell us about interpretation’ in Marmor, A and Soames, S (eds) Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

186 T Endicott ‘The value of vagueness’ in Marmor and Soames, above n 185.

187 Soames, above n 185.

188 Halsey, above n 18, at [50] (for the appeal of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust): ‘We accept that the subject-matter of this dispute was not by its nature unsuitable for ADR…’; Thakkar v Patel [2017] EWCA Civ 117 at [27]: ‘The [trial] judge held that this case was suitable for mediation… Those findings were plainly correct. I say that for five reasons: i. The dispute between the parties was a commercial one. It was purely about money…’.

189 Halsey, above n 18, at [78] (for the appeal of Steel v Joy and Halliday): ‘This case raised the question whether Performance Cars is still good law, or whether it could be distinguished. Put like that, the claim against the second defendant, therefore, raised a question of law. In our judgment, the second defendant did not act unreasonably in saying that he (or more realistically his insurers) wanted to have that question resolved by the court. In these circumstances, the nature of the dispute was one which was towards the “intrinsically unsuitable” end of the spectrum. It is a far cry from a typical road traffic claim which raises no disputes of law, and where disputed facts are intrinsically suitable for resolution by ADR’; Harrison v Madejski [2014] EWCA Civ 361 [79]: ‘At least two of the matters stated there were reasonable justifications for the refusal to enter into mediation. One was that the claimant had put in issue the legality of the exclusion of liability provisions in Condition 6.2 and Coys considered that it was important to establish whether or not those provisions were valid and effective’; Gore v Naheed [2017] EWCA Civ 369 [50]: ‘In this case the judge did take it into account but concluded that it was not unreasonable for Mr Gore to have declined to mediate. His solicitor considered that mediation had no realistic prospect of succeeding and would only add to the costs. The judge said that he considered that the case raised quite complex questions of law which made it unsuitable for mediation’.

190 Jackson Preliminary Report, above n 2, ch 36 paras 3.5, 4.1-4.2.

191 Briggs ‘Interim Report’, above n 3, para 6.13.

192 Briggs ‘Interim report’, above n 3, paras 6.7–6.13; Briggs ‘Final report’, above n 3, paras 6.108–6.113, 7.22–7.23; Etherton, above n 62, paras 23, 25.

193 Briggs ‘Final report’, above n 3, paras 7.3–7.5, 7.26–7.34; Etherton, above n 62, para 25.

194 Civil Justice Council ADR Working Group, above n 23, para 2.17.

195 Genn, above n 22, p 75.

196 Lord Neuberger, above n 39, at para 44.

197 Etherton, above n 62, at para 26.

198 Etherton, above n 62, at para 24.

199 Halsey, above n 18, at [21].

200 Lord Justice Jackson ‘Fixed costs – the time has come’ (IPA Annual Lecture, 2016).

201 Ibid, 13.

202 Jackson, above n 200, at 13.

203 CPR 1.1(2).

204 Essar Oilfields Services Ltd v Norscot Rig Management PVT Ltd [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm), [2016] WLR(D) 576.

205 Ibid, at [68].

206 Neuberger, above n 39.

The paper has greatly benefited from comment by Dr Andrew Higgins and two anonymous reviewers.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The role of the English courts in alternative dispute resolution

  • AKC Koo (a1)

Metrics

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.