UK: A New Impetus For ADR Before Issue?

Last Updated: 8 October 2009
Article by Tony Allen

The new provisions in the Pre-action Conduct Practice Direction

On 6 April 2009, the old Practice Direction to the Protocol was replaced by the new Pre-action Conduct Practice Direction (the PCPD).  This article looks in detail at the changes made and asks whether the changes made will encourage the more frequent use of mediation before proceedings are issued.

One of the bugbears of the standard form of wording in all the Pre-action Protocols (PAPs) and also their old Practice Direction (PD) in dealing with ADR was the payoff phrase:

It is expressly recognised that no party can or should be forced to mediate or enter into any form of ADR.

This is a phrase which originated in the first Construction and Engineering Protocol and was cut and pasted into all other the PAPs by the 41st amendment to the CPR, with effect from April 2006.  The problem with that wording was that it may have represented the position as it was thought to be in 1999, but this was before the Court of Appeal's decisions in Dunnett v Railtrack and Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust.  It was always a summary devoid of actual authority, and was rendered even less accurate by Halsey, when, despite being obiter dicta, the Court specifically approved the use of ADR Orders in the form set out in Appendix 7 of the Admiralty and Commercial Court Guide, and also the "Ungley" Order, used in clinical negligence cases and regarded as apt for other types of cases.  But the ratio of Halsey, following Dunnett, also warned parties that costs sanctions under CPR 44.5 can be imposed even on a successful party, make that wording seriously misleading.  Of course none of these amount to being "forced" to mediate or use ADR, but the possibility of costs sanctions is a real one and hardly to be minimised in the airy dismissal of concern about not mediating which those words represent, bearing in mind also its position (as the last comment about ADR).

The news is that the new PCPD has removed these words from the section in which it deals with ADR, and in several other respects treats ADR very differently, in a broadly welcome and positive way.  The odd thing currently is that the offending phrase still features in all the other PAPs.  We are told that there is a review of the PAPs being undertaken, and it can only be assumed (or hoped) that this phrase will disappear during that review.

So what does the new PCPD actually say both generally and about ADR?  It starts by setting out its aims, as being to:

1.1

(1) enable parties to settle the issue between them without the need to start proceedings (that is, a court claim); and
(2) support the efficient management by the court and the parties of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

1.2

These aims are to be achieved by encouraging the parties to –
(1) exchange information about the issue, and
(2) consider using a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution ('ADR').

These are the aims of the PCPD and not the PAPs themselves.  Notably, the aims are to be achieved by encouraging the use of ADR, specifically stated as such at the outset of the PCPD.

Contrast the language at the beginning of the superseded PD to the PAPs, which starts: 

1.3

Pre-action protocols outline the steps parties should take to seek information from and to provide information to each other about a prospective legal claim.

1.4

The objectives of pre-action protocols are:
(1) to encourage the exchange of early and full information about the prospective legal claim,
(2) to enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim before the commencement of proceedings,
(3) to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided.

The difference is immediately discernible.  Whereas the old PD was subordinate to the PAPs, first spelling out the consequences of not complying with the relevant PAP, and then moving on to deal with claims not covered by any PAP, the new PCPD establishes itself as the overall authority for all pre-action conduct.  It talks of the aims of the Practice Direction rather than the aims of the Protocols, and the PAPs are in effect all subject to the PCPD.

ADR is now defined as being alternative dispute resolution, and is the collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process.  This reappears from the glossary but is now a definition rather than a description.  Whether the "normal trial process" included all pre-trial process (including for instance settlement by Part 36 offer) remains unexplained.  When 90% of cases settle, it raises the question as to whether trial is indeed "normal". 

Parties will now be expected to comply "with this PD or any relevant PAP", compliance determining both directions for case management and costs orders.  Para. 4.4 gives as an example of non-compliance that a party "has...unreasonably refused to consider ADR", referring to the provisions of Para 8 of the PCPD and the similar provisions in each PAP about ADR.  Para. 8 contains what presumably will become the standard provision in all the PAPs.  This reads:

8.1

Starting proceedings should usually be a step of last resort, and proceedings should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Although ADR is not compulsory, the parties should consider whether some form of ADR procedure might enable them to settle the matter without starting proceedings. The court may require evidence that the parties considered some form of ADR (see paragraph 4.4(3)).

...

8.3

The Legal Services Commission has published a booklet on 'Alternatives to Court', CLS Direct Information Leaflet 23 (www.clsdirect.org.uk) which lists a number of organisations that provide alternative dispute resolution services. The National Mediation Helpline on 0845 603 0809 or at www.nationalmediationhelpline.com can provide information about mediation.

8.4

The parties should continue to consider the possibility of reaching a settlement at all times. This still applies after proceedings have been started, up to and during any trial or final hearing.

So, instead of informing parties that they cannot be "forced" to use ADR, the rather more accurate version of the PCPD provides that "although ADR is not compulsory, the parties should consider whether some form of ADR procedure might enable them to settle the matter without starting proceedings."

The language of "last resort" is still used about the issue of proceedings, but there is a small quibble on wording which has been preserved from the old PD, namely the comment that:

"proceedings should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored".  The emphasised words do not cover the situation where settlement ought to be explored, and this is a concept to be added to cover the situation where both (or all) parties fail to try to settle.

Para 8 gives the usual list of non-exhaustive options for "resolving the matter without starting proceedings", but interestingly varied from the old PD.  Now the order is:

  • Discussion and negotiation (still not clearly classified as a form of ADR – and in my view, rightly so);
  • Mediation;
  • Early neutral evaluation (ENE);
  • Arbitration, referring particularly to consumer disputes.

The old PD listed:

  • Discussion and negotiation
  • Early neutral evaluation (and then)
  • Mediation

Two points can be made about the change.  The old PD was alphabetical and bore no relationship to comparative practice, in that mediation far outstrips ENE in use.  Secondly, arbitration did not feature in the old PD.  Because it is an adjudicative process, it is often argued as not being true ADR in the UK (whereas it has always been regarded as ADR in the US).  Its consumer status probably explains the change.

The parties should continue to consider the possibility of reaching a settlement at all times. This still applies after proceedings have been started, up to and during any trial or final hearing.

The payoff to para. 8 is far better than the old "no forcing ADR", providing a reminder of the continuing duty to consider settlement, by saying:

8.4   The parties should continue to consider the possibility of reaching a settlement at all times. This still applies after proceedings have been started, up to and during any trial or final hearing.

What are the consequences of non-compliance?  These are spelt out in Para.4.  Saying that the court will look at the overall effect of non-compliance, para.4.6 lists the following possible sanctions:

(1)

staying (that is suspending) the proceedings until steps which ought to have been taken have been taken;

(2)

an order that the party at fault pays the costs, or part of the costs, of the other party or parties (this may include an order under rule 27.14(2)(g) in cases allocated to the small claims track);

(3)

an order that the party at fault pays those costs on an indemnity basis (rule 44.4(3) sets out the definition of the assessment of costs on an indemnity basis);

(4)

if the party at fault is the claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made, an order that the claimant is deprived of interest on all or part of that sum, and/or that interest is awarded at a lower rate than would otherwise have been awarded;

(5)

if the party at fault is a defendant, and an order for the payment of a sum of money is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order that the defendant pay interest on all or part of that sum at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate, than would otherwise have been awarded.

These are a somewhat fuller range of sanctions than in the old PD, making it clear firstly that a costs sanction can even be imposed for non-compliance in small claims track cases.  Most interesting for ADR is the concept of specifying stay of proceedings as a sanction.  This is the only one which is not specifically a sanction in favour of one party based on the default of another.  This may well come into play in cases where both parties unreasonably fail to use pre-issue ADR, as happened for instance in McMillen Williams v Range.  The court has always had the power stay under CPR 26.4, but this formulation sharpens the focus of the court's power.

The only other specific references to ADR are the requirements for claimants and defendant to propose what (if any) type of ADR they propose.

So these provisions are better than the standard form in the PAPs and the old PD.  We shall see what happens to the PAPs in the course of the review being undertaken to their wording.  Will the new wording make any difference to use of ADR prior to issue?  Will it encourage District Judges and Masters to take a tougher stance over finding and penalising unreasonable failure to mediate before issue of proceedings?  It should do so, with the change in balance made by the new wording, but I am not yet convinced that it will, certainly not in the absence of a firm steer from the Court of Appeal in an appropriate case.  There has been little evidence of firm policing of party responsibilities under the PAPs since their introduction ten years ago, which means that the "front-loading" dividend has never properly been captured.  The PAPs are there to make pre-issue settlement as attainable as possible.  Procedural judges should, of their own initiative, be raising with parties whether ADR has been tried pre-issue and where they are dissatisfied with the answers given by either or both party, they should consider sanctions.  It is not enough for judges to wait for the point to be taken by a party not at fault.  The overriding objective requires a balance in affording access to the courts to take account of allocation of resources as between all users.  Why should parties who have not attempted to settle in accordance with their obligations under the PAPs take up court time and thus slow down access to trial for those who have met their obligations?  If there is any criticism to be made of the new PCPD, it is in assuming that there will always be a defaulter and an innocent.  It is just as likely that both or all parties will prefer not to use ADR properly before proceedings are issued.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions