UK: Another String to the Bow!

Last Updated: 24 August 2006

By Philip Norman1

It has become increasingly obvious to those in the construction industry that they have a choice in the way their disputes are resolved and managed. They are no longer required to submit to the sovereign jurisdiction of the national courts and adopt the procedural and evidential burdens that proving cases in those courts require2. More frequently, by reason of the increasing popularity of ADR, companies prefer the possibility of retaining control in the resolution of disputes rather than handing their fate over to a third party judge.

This has resulted in a change in the manner project contracts are made. Many, including standard forms, require that parties undertake a process of amicable dispute resolution before issuing proceedings. In Project Alliancing contracts, the parties agree to a "No Blame No Dispute" clause, which precludes adversarial litigation.

Whilst still in its infancy, the modern trend is to avoid conflict and adversarial contracting. This process is supported by the changing dispute resolution processes, which are equally geared away from resolving the disputes in a confrontational manner. Mediation for example focuses on the parties’ needs and not necessarily their rights, in an attempt to find creative solutions.

The table below shows the statistics of the Royal Courts of Justice Technology and Construction Court sitting in London.3


Claims Received

Claims Disposed of

Total (including transferred cases)

Claims Disposed of Settlement/

Struck out/ Discontinued

Claims Disposed of at Trial

Interim Applications











































It is obvious that the traditional work of the TCC is on the wane. This is partly due to the changing nature of contracting in the construction industry, partly due to the Adjudication process in the UK and partly due to the provisions in the CPR which have promoted early settlements, by requiring exchanges of information at the earliest possible stages through pre-action protocols and by formalising costs penalties in connection with offers to settle. Further there has been judicial support for dispute resolution by mediation, to the extent that parties refusing to mediate may suffer costs sanctions4.

No doubt these issues prompted the senior judiciary to consider how to improve the TCC to better provide for the modern construction industry. On 7 June 2005, the Lord Chief Justice issued a statement committing to modernising the TCC and implementing interim arrangements, which included allocating a High Court Judge to the TCC on a full time basis5. Contemporaneously, HHJ Toulmin CMG QC began considering a proposal that TCC judges should offer services in ADR6. Upon his appointment to the High Court Bench in November 2005, Mr. Justice Vivian Ramsey assisted HHJ Toulmin, resulting in a proposal7 being published on 8 December 2005, entitled "Court Settlement Process" (CSP).

What is being proposed is that TCC judges, who have specialist expertise, should be able to use their case management role to assist parties in achieving settlement of their disputes. There are two conditions to this, firstly, that either the judge or the parties must consider that there is a possibility that amicable settlement will be reached, and secondly that the judge is "particularly able to assist in achieving that settlement".

If the CSP does not result in settlement, the judge will recuse himself from further participation in the disposal of the case.

There is no express definition or description of what CSP is. This is probably to allow Judges the flexibility to adopt the best suited process to resolve the dispute. There are however hints as to the range of processes which may be adopted by a judge. For example, the first sentence of the Paper states: "The specialist judges of the Technology and Construction Court have particular expertise in the evaluation of the disputes which are dealt with in that court", suggesting a process similar to Early Neutral Evaluation.

Later in the paper, under the section entitled "Court Settlement Order" it provides that the process is "a confidential, voluntary and non-binding dispute resolution process in which the Settlement Judge assists the Parties in cases before the Court to reach an amicable settlement at a Court Settlement Conference" and provides that the judge may conduct the process "in such manner, as the Judge considers appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the wishes of the Parties and the overriding objective" of the CPR.

The further description of the powers granted to the judge by the Court Settlement Order suggest a process which is similar to that of a mediator, so that the Judge (absent objection) "may communicate with the Parties together or with any Party separately, including private meetings at which the Settlement Judge may express views on the disputes."

The Settlement Meeting is envisaged to last no longer than a day and the issues of confidentiality, costs, exclusion of liability and the judge’s recusal are provided for in similar terms to those contained in contracts governing the established methods of ADR.

Upon invitation, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators responded to this Paper on 27 February 2006, with emphatic objections to the proposals. The CIArb considered that the expression "CSP" clearly means mediation and on that basis sets out 5 reasons in support of its objections:

  • Mediation by judges is inconsistent with the overriding objective of the CPR for dealing with cases justly. They argue that allowing judges to act as mediators gives too generous an interpretation of the CPR and that judges should be limited in assisting parties to settle the whole or part of the dispute, by granting the parties time to pursue ADR outside of court. They also state that the caucus process in mediation could be seen to be a breach of natural justice;
  • Mediation by judges is not a judicial function. The argument is that judges are chosen for their skills of considering, weighing and determining issues and not as negotiators/facilitators. These skills are different and there is no reason to believe that a good judge is of necessity a good mediator;
  • Mediation by judges threatens public confidence in the court, as by so acting they compromise the impartiality and neutrality of courts, and the appearance of such. In particular the focus is on undue coercion, role confusion, competence and training and the appearance of impropriety;
  • No measures are to be adopted to alleviate the above concerns. By reference to the Superior Court of New Hampshire, which has such a scheme, the CIArb point out that no mitigating measure, such as training, selection of location for the mediation and safeguards preventing the Settlement Judge from speaking to the ultimate Trial Judge, have been considered or proposed;
  • The proposal is no improvement on Early Neutral Evaluation.

I do not consider that what is being proposed is mediation in its strict sense. Parties are likely to still be encouraged to attend mediation outside of the court process. The impression that is given by the "CSP" is that it is intended to allow a judge the opportunity to "bang the parties’ heads together".

Often, during a preliminary hearing that judges express views or reservations about cases, subject to full argument. They do this in various ways, for example by posing probing questions to counsel or by making the subtle comment, always careful to avoid any breach of natural justice. The CSP allows judges to set out their views confidentially and robustly, if necessary, without the possibility that the litigation will flounder for a breach of natural justice.

The process will be useful where litigation progresses to trial solely because of the characters involved (clients and lawyers alike), whose participation has avoided early settlement. A judge’s views will bring into sharp focus the merits, and more importantly the litigation risk in each party’s case. This is particularly so because of the judge’s status; he brings with him the imprimatur of authority. It will be someone like him, with the same training and attributes who will eventually determine the dispute, should there be no settlement. No matter how competent a mediator is, he does not have that gravitas.

Unless controlled very carefully, it is unlikely that the CSP will concentrate on the parties’ needs. Inevitably any Settlement Meeting will be attended by lawyers, they will be cagey about the weaknesses of their case and will treat the judge as a judge. More importantly, they will press for their client’s rights and are likely only to produce documents which support their client’s case. This is all in aid of obtaining a positive view on the merits from the judge; which may not result in settlement at that meeting, but could be used as a tool to bring a settlement about later on.

However the CSP evolves, it at least creates a further option in the array of dispute resolution mechanisms available. This can only be good for business. The CSP makes the services of the TCC more relevant and will no doubt form a consideration in parties’ minds when they chose their dispute resolution forum.


1 In his article, ‘Mediation and the Rise of Relationship Contracting’ (2003) Law Society of South Australia Bulletin Vo.24 No.7, Greg Rooney comments: "Clients no longer unquestioningly place their trust and welfare totally in the hands of professionals. They are more informed and discerning than previous generations. Clients want their lawyers to provide realistic and creative options for dealing with disputes. They would prefer options that create opportunities as well as minimise the risk of involvement in further disputes."

2 These figures are derived from the Annual Reports prepared by the Queen’s Bench Division from 199 to 2004 and from the TCC Annual Report 2005. The figures exclude data from the Central London County Court and the other TCC trial centres based outside of London. The figures for actions pending at the end of each year are not included in this table, but can be found in the Annual Reports.

3 See Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 and approved in Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358

4 This was no doubt done in recognition of the increasing number of high value cases and projects that exist as well as acknowledging that construction generates in the region of 10% of the GDP.

5 The term ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is used in the sense adopted by the courts in England, and therefore excludes reference to arbitration.

6 This proposal was informed by consultation with TeCSA and TECBAR and thereafter discussions at a meeting held on 5 December 2005 at which TCC Judges, the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division were present.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.