ABSTRACT
This note critically considers the landmark decision of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfill County Borough Council in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that the courts could compel disputing parties to engage with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes provided any order or stay in favour of ADR did not undermine their right to proceed to a judicial hearing, and was proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal departed from its previous controversial comments in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust that to compel parties to engage with ADR would undermine their right to a fair trial. The note considers the impact of Churchill on the civil court process and its relevance to the pre-action protocols. It is argued that, for the courts to effectively exercise their discretion in ordering ADR or staying proceedings in favour of ADR, the courts must have an understanding of the full range and nature of ADR procedures beyond mediation, and constructively engage in an ‘ADR dialogue’ with the parties before referring them to the most appropriate ADR procedure.
€ (Westlaw)
Masood Ahmed, ‘Revisiting compulsory alternative dispute resolution in the English civil justice system’, (2024) 43(4) Civil Justice Quarterly 265-282.
Leave a Reply