Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:30:24.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2020

Sue Prince
Sue Prince*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of Exeter
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: S.J.Prince@exeter.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

civil justicereformtechnologysmall claimsaccess to justiceuser-centred
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 16 , Special Issue 2: Jurisdictional Perspectives on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice , June 2020 , pp. 181 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, M (2012) Implied compulsory mediation. Civil Justice Quarterly 31, 151–175.Google Scholar
Ahmed, M (2015) Bridging the gap between alternative dispute resolution and robust adverse cost orders. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 66, 71–92.Google Scholar
Ahmed, M (2018) Mediation: the need for a united, clear and consistent judicial voice. Civil Justice Quarterly 37, 13–19.Google Scholar
Ali, SF (2019) Civil mediation reform: balancing the scales of procedural and substantive justice. Civil Justice Quarterly 38, 9–31.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Briggs, M (2013) Chancery Modernisation Review, Final Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Briggs, M (2015) Civil Courts Structure Review: Interim Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Briggs, M (2016) Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report. London: Judiciary of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Brooke, H (2004) The legal and policy implications of courtroom technology: the emerging English experience. William and Mary Rights Journal 12, 699–714.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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, 664–707.Google Scholar
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (2018) 8th Mediation Audit. London: CEDR. Available at https://www.cedr.com/foundation/mediation-audit/ (accessed 20 January 2020).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Cloke, K (2008) Conflict Resolution. Santa Ana, CA: Janis Publications.Google Scholar
Court Service (2002) Modernising the Civil and Family Courts: Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme. London: Court Service.Google Scholar
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, 162–185.Google Scholar
Economides, K (1980) Small claims and procedural justice. British Journal of Law and Society 7, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Fiss, O (1984) Against settlement. Yale Law Journal 93, 1073–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Genn, H (2008) Judging civil justice. Hamlyn Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Genn, H (2012) What is civil justice for? Reform, ADR and access to Justice. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 24, 397–417.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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, 199–239.Google Scholar
Hart, HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review 71, 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (2019) Reform update. Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hmcts-reform-update-civil. (accessed 20 January2020).Google Scholar
House of Commons Justice Committee (2019) Court and Tribunal Reforms, 2nd Report of Session 2019, HC190. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Howarth, D (2014) Law as Engineering. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Jackson, R (2009) Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Jackson, R (2010) Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
JUSTICE (2015) Delivering justice in an age of austerity. Available at https://justice.org.uk/justice-age-austerity-2/ (accessed 20 January 2020).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
JUSTICE (2018) Preventing digital exclusion from online justice. Available at https://justice.org.uk/our-work/assisted-digital/ (accessed 20 January 2020).Google Scholar
Katsh, K and Rabinovich-Einy, O (2017) Digital Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legatt, A (2001) Tribunals for Users: One System One Service. Report of the Review of Tribunals. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Lord Chancellor et al. (2016) Transforming Our Justice System: Joint Vision Statement. Cm9391. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadows, C (1996) The trouble with the adversary system in a postmodern, multicultural world. William & Mary Law Review 38, 5–44.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2012) Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler Quicker and More Proportionate System. Cm 8274. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2017) Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: Post-Legislative Memorandum. Cm 9486. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2019b) Legal Support: The Way Ahead. CP 40. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
National, Audit Office (2018) HMCTS: Early Progress in Transforming Courts and Tribunals. Session 2017–19. HC101. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Prince, S (2007) Mediating small claims: are we on the right track? Civil Justice Quarterly 26, 328–340.Google Scholar
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, 111–125.Google Scholar
Quek, D (2010) Mandatory mediation: an oxymoron? Examining the feasibility of implementing a court-based mediation programme. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 11, 479–509.Google Scholar
Rabinovich-Einy, O and Katsh, E (2014) Digital justice: reshaping boundaries in an online dispute resolution environment. International Journal of Dispute Resolution 1, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, J (2019) Justicial judging: towards a renewal in problem-solving access to justice. Civil Justice Quarterly 38, 32–43.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Salter, S (2017) Online dispute resolution and justice system integration: British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal. Windsor Year Book of Access to Justice 34, 112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 113–153.Google Scholar
Sanders, F (1976) Varieties of dispute resolution. Federal Rules Decisions 70, 130–131.Google Scholar
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, 146–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, J (2012) The road to new street station: fact, fiction and the overriding objective. European Business Law Review 1, 1–77.Google Scholar
Susskind, R (2019) Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Tyler, TR (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice 30, 283–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, Loo R (2016) The Corporation as courthouse. Yale J on Regulation 33, 547–602.Google Scholar
Woolf, H (1995) Access to Justice Interim Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Woolf, H (1996) Access to Justice Final Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar