Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mediation in England

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Three Paths of Justice

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 65))

Abstract

Six fundamental principles of mediation are identified. This chapter also surveys the main features of mediation in England. The mediator’s role is to act as an independent and disinterested third party and encourage the parties to talk and to move towards a possible agreed settlement. In England resort to mediation has increased, notably in the field of commercial disputes. Litigation remains an expensive and problematic means of resolving many types of civil dispute. Government recognises that ADR permits disputes to be resolved less expensively than civil litigation. Many corporations now prefer to use arbitration in combination with other ADR mechanisms (a ‘multi-tiered’ dispute-resolution clause). An English court will enforce mediation agreements by ordering a stay of litigation brought in violation of that agreement. English judges do not act as mediators. Instead the court system encourages litigants to pursue mediation in appropriate cases. Judicial leverage to consider and to pursue mediation takes the form of a ‘stay’ upon current proceedings or the threat of an adverse costs order. Confidential communications during mediation are privileged against compulsory production in legal proceedings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    C Esplugues and S Barona (eds), Global Perspectives on ADR (Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge, 2014) (hereafter ‘E & B (2014)’); C Esplugues-Mota (ed) (and others) Civil and Commercial Mediation in Europe (Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge, 2013 and 2014), vol 1 (National Mediation Rules and Procedures’), vol 2 (Cross-Border Mediation) (hereafter ‘Esplugues (2013–2014)’); K Hopt and F Steffek (eds), Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2013) (hereafter, ‘H & S (2013)’); F Steffek and H Unberath (eds), Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2013) (hereafter ‘S & U (2013)’). Regional studies include: G De Palo and MB Trevor (eds), EU Mediation: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2012) (hereafter ‘De P and T (2012)’); Wang Guiguo and Yang Fan, Mediation in Asia-Pacific (CCH Publishing, Hong Kong, 2013) (hereafter ‘Wang and Yang (2013)’). On the English material, Bibliography, Section 9. See also N Alexander, International and Comparative Mediation (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2009) (hereafter ‘Alexander (2009)’); C Hodges and A Stadler (eds), Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2013).

  2. 2.

    In some jurisdictions ‘conciliation’ denotes a more active involvement of the third party, or even evaluative mediation conducted by a judge in court (eg, H & S (2013) (note 1 above), 1098; Alexander (2009), 16–17). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation (2002), Article 1.3, uses the word ‘conciliation’ (on this Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 391–3); but the UNCITRAL document acknowledges that ‘mediation’ is often a synonym for the relevant third party assistance to enable parties to reach an amicable settlement.

  3. 3.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 9; see also the tabular presentation of the characteristics of negotiation, mediation, judicial settlement procedure, and arbitration, ibid, at 29–38; and specifically on judicially stimulated settlement or judicial mediation, ibid, at 128–148.

  4. 4.

    K Mackie, D Miles, W Marsh, Tony Allen, The ADR Practice Guide (Tottel Publishing, London, 2000) 15.3 (not in 2007 edn).

  5. 5.

    Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.

  6. 6.

    http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2004/com2004_0718en01.pdf; for the European Code of Conduct for Mediators: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/ejn/adr/adr_ec_code_conduct_en.htm.

  7. 7.

    On the two main models of ‘market-based’ mediation and the ‘justice model’ of court-annexed mediation, N Alexander, in H & S (2013) (note 1 above), 158–159: noting also the hybrid form where private mediators are appointed by the court and provided at the court’s expense.

  8. 8.

    M Roth and D Gherdane, in H & S (2013) (note 1 above), 291.

  9. 9.

    For extensive references to electronic mediation, see the sections entitled ‘”E”-justice’ within the national reports collected in Esplugues (2013–2014), vol 2.

  10. 10.

    P Newman, in M Liebmann (ed), Mediation In Context (Jessica Kingsley Publishing, London and Philadelphia, 2000), 183–4.

  11. 11.

    ‘The [mediator] may, at any stage of the [mediation] proceedings, make proposals for a settlement of the dispute’: Article 6(4), Model Law of International Commercial Conciliation (2002); Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 414.

  12. 12.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 16–17.

  13. 13.

    Ibid, 15.

  14. 14.

    K Mackie, D Miles, W Marsh, Tony Allen, The ADR Practice Guide (3rd edn, Tottel Publishing, London, 2007), 3.4.1.

  15. 15.

    For comment (and further references to literature) on the ‘public’ dimensions of the civil court process, H Genn, ‘Understanding Civil Justice’ (1997) 50 CLP 155, 186–7 and PL Murray, ‘The Privatization of Civil Justice’ (2007) 12 ZZP Int 283–303 and (same author), ‘Mediation and Civil Justice: A Public-Private Partnership?’ (2009) 14 ZZP Int 241.

  16. 16.

    See Neil Andrews, ‘Mediation: International Experience and Global Trends’ (2017) Journal of International and Comparative Law forthcoming for comparison with the analysis of C Esplugues and S Barona (eds), Global Perspectives on ADR (Intersentia Publishing, Cambridge, 2014), 44 ff.

  17. 17.

    On this last point, Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 224.

  18. 18.

    eg, the mediator should not be ‘conflicted’: P Brooker, ‘Mediator Immunity: Time for Evaluation in England and Wales?’ (2016) 36 LS 464, 482–4.

  19. 19.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), at 27 and 219 ff; and on duties to disclose potential conflicts, 216 ff; the flip-side is possible attacks on mediated settlements based on alleged lack of impartiality, 222 ff; mediators are also expected not to operate as legal advisors, 223.

  20. 20.

    Article 6(3), Model Law of International Commercial Conciliation (2002); Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 413; see also official UNCITRAL Guide to this soft-law Model Law (reproduced in Wang and Yang (2013) (note 1 above), 501–2).

  21. 21.

    P Brooker, ‘Mediator Immunity: Time for Evaluation in England and Wales?’ (2016) 36 LS 464, 482–488; a mediator’s responsibilities are complex and extensive, eg, the convenient list in Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 216 (13 duties listed); and on the power to terminate mediation proceedings because of unsatisfactory participation, ibid, at 224; and on the liability of mediators and the scope for recognising immunity, ibid, at 240–4; and on mediators’ duties to record, preserve records, or report, ibid, at 325 ff.

  22. 22.

    The importance of this factor is emphasised in Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 164; generally on the validity of mediated settlements, and the opportunities for legal challenge, ibid, 301–325.

  23. 23.

    On the various categories of protected information, Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 248.

  24. 24.

    On exceptions to confidentiality, Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 282–5.

  25. 25.

    Tony Allen, Mediation Law and Civil Practice (Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013), Chap. 9; for non-English material, Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), Chap. 6 (analysis of the various facets of confidentiality in this context); on mediator evidential immunity, ibid, at 259–266.

  26. 26.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 290–1: (i) modalities of confidentiality (outsiders; confidentiality as between participants to the mediation; confidentiality vis-a-vis the wider legal process); (ii) persons subject to the duty to maintain confidentiality; (iii) types of material which are confidential; (iv) stages or precursors to mediation which attract protection; (v) exceptions.

  27. 27.

    Lord Phillips, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution: An English Viewpoint’ (Judicial Communications office, London, 29 March 2008): (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6BBEAB74-204A-4AED-AC83-0624CC358794/0/lcj_adr_india_290308.pdf).

  28. 28.

    A Clarke, ‘The Future of Civil Mediation’ (Civil Mediation Council, London, May 2008: (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/927B0C45-8C4D-4A3B-BDF7-5FEB7D8A0D1B/0/mr_mediation_conference_may08.pdf).

  29. 29.

    Some of these points are made by Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 48, 53–4.

  30. 30.

    Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld (1879–1918), Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1919) (Dartmouth: Ashgate Publishing, 2001).

  31. 31.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), Chap. 6; Tony Allen, Mediation Law and Civil Practice (Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013), Chap. 9.

  32. 32.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 49–50.

  33. 33.

    Alexander (2009) (note 1 above), 53.

  34. 34.

    See 10.38 and 11.02.

  35. 35.

    The School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, report (2005), available on-line at: (http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/0B3FD76A8551573E85257168005122C8).

  36. 36.

    [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [2013] 1 WLR 102; for criticism, Neil Andrews, ‘Mediation Agreements: Time for a More Creative Approach by the English Courts’ (2013) 18 Revue de droit uniforme 6–16 (also known as Uniform Law Review).

  37. 37.

    [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm), [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041, at [21] (Colman J).

  38. 38.

    [2011] EWHC 668 (QB), Slade J.

  39. 39.

    Equality Act 2010, s 120 and the Equality Rights Act 1996, s 203.

  40. 40.

    Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002, at [9] to [11].

  41. 41.

    ‘Practice Direction-Protocols’, para 4.7.

  42. 42.

    Directions Questionnaires are on forms N180 (small claims: where mediation is more emphatically emphasised as an option) and N181 (fast track and multi-track, where mediation is suggested as a general possibility, but without particular emphasis) (for the procedural background, 1.42 and CPR 26.3; CPR 26.8; PD (26); WB (2018), at 26.3.1 ff).

  43. 43.

    H Genn, ‘Twisting Arms: Court Referred and Court Linked Mediation under Judicial Pressure’ (Ministry of Justice Research Series, 1/07: London, 2007), at p iii; H Genn, Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 107.

  44. 44.

    S Prince, ‘Mandatory Mediation: The Ontario Experience’ (2007) 26 CJQ 79; and the summary by H Genn, ‘Twisting Arms’ (cited above), 10.

  45. 45.

    (C-317/08: 2010).

  46. 46.

    S Shipman, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Threat of Adverse Costs, and the Right of Access to Court’, in D Dwyer (ed), The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford University Press, 2009), 353–4.

  47. 47.

    Against any form of mandating or coercing resort to mediation, Matthew Brunsdon-Tully ‘There is an A in ADR but Does Anyone Know What it Means Anymore?’ (2009) CJQ 218–36.

  48. 48.

    CPR 1.4(2)(f).

  49. 49.

    CPR 1.4(2)(e); eg, Commercial Court Guide, Section G and Appendix 7.

  50. 50.

    CPR 26.4(3).

  51. 51.

    CPR 3.1(2)(f); CPR 26.4(1)(2).

  52. 52.

    Commercial Court Guide, at G1.3.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, Appendix 7.

  54. 54.

    Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002, at [30].

  55. 55.

    Tony Allen, Mediation Law and Civil Practice (Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013), Chaps. 6 and 7; E Crawford and J Carruthers, in Esplugues (2013–2014), vol 1 (note 1 above), 539, n 98. And literature in ensuing notes.

  56. 56.

    [2002] 1 WLR 2434, CA, [13] ff.

  57. 57.

    [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002, [16] ff.

  58. 58.

    McMillan Williams v Range [2004] EWCA Civ 294, [2004] 1 WLR 1858, [29] and [30].

  59. 59.

    [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, [2014] 1 WLR 1386; noted AKC Koo (2014) 33 CJQ 261–5; G Meggitt (2014) 33 CJQ 335-348; M Ahmed [2014] CLJ 35–37; B Rix, ‘The Interface of Mediation and Litigation’ (2014) 76 Arbitration 21–27; J Sidoli del Ceno and P Barrett (2012) 78 Arbitration 401–404.

  60. 60.

    On these two types of costs calculation, Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 18.23 ff.

  61. 61.

    McMillan Williams v Range [2004] EWCA Civ 294, [2004] 1 WLR 1858, at [29] and [30] (Ward LJ).

  62. 62.

    [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002, at [16] ff; P4 Ltd v Unite Integrated Solutions plc [2006] EWHC 2924 (TCC), Ramsey J; Tony Allen, Mediation Law and Civil Practice (Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013), Chap. 7; AKC Koo (2014) 33 CJQ 261, 264 at fn 12.

  63. 63.

    ‘The Role of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Furthering the Aims of the Civil Litigation Costs Review’ (RICS Expert Witness Conference, 8 March 2012), para 3.8: (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-jackson-speech-eleventh-lecture-implementation-programme.pdf).

  64. 64.

    [2014] EWHC 3148 (TCC), [2015] 3 All ER 782 (Ramsey J).

  65. 65.

    Virani Ltd v Manuel Revert y Cia SA [2003] EWCA Civ 1651, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14.

  66. 66.

    Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358.

  67. 67.

    eg, Vahidi v Fairstead House School Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 765 at [27] (Longmore LJ, commenting that work-related ‘stress’ claims are especially suited to mediation).

  68. 68.

    [2008] EWCA Civ 800, at [49]; noted J Sorabji (2008) 27 CJQ 427.

  69. 69.

    [2008] EWHC 12 (TCC), at [36].

  70. 70.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 78 [2011] NPC 17.

  71. 71.

    Halsey case [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002.

  72. 72.

    [2002] 1 WLR 2434, CA, at [13] ff.

  73. 73.

    [2004] EWCA Civ 294, [2004] 1 WLR 1858, at [29], [30].

  74. 74.

    Halsey case [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002, at [29].

  75. 75.

    [2002] 1 WLR 2434, CA, at [13] ff.

  76. 76.

    Ibid, at [16] (Brooke LJ); similarly, McMillan Williams v Range [2004] EWCA Civ 294, [2004] 1 WLR 1858.

  77. 77.

    Andrews ACP (2013) vol 1, 12.49 ff; and the relevant chapters in the works listed at Bibliography, Section 3.5.

  78. 78.

    [2008] EWHC 786 (QB) (HH Judge Frances Kirkham sitting as a High Court Judge).

  79. 79.

    Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 887, [2004] 1 WLR 3026; Aird v Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1866; Bradford & Bingley plc v Rashid [2006] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 WLR 2066; Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 502, [2007] 1 WLR 2443, at [34].

  80. 80.

    [2008] EWHC 424 at [72] (Sorabji (2008) 27 CJQ 288, 291–2).

  81. 81.

    [2007] EWHC 625 (Ch) Stuart Isaacs QC.

  82. 82.

    [2010] UKSC 44, [2011] 1 AC662 (reversing [2010] EWCA Civ 79, [2010] 1 WLR 1803, Longmore and Stanley Burnton LJJ; Ward LJ dissenting); R v K (A) [2009] EWCA Crim 1640, [2010] QB 343, at [44] to [73].

  83. 83.

    [2009] EWHC 1102 (TCC), [2009] BLR 399.

  84. 84.

    Ibid, at [45] ff.

  85. 85.

    ‘Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters’: Official Journal L 136, 24/05/2008 P. 0003–0008.

  86. 86.

    Waiver by ‘mutual conduct’ occurred in Hall v Pertemps Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 3110 (Ch); The Times 23 December 2005, Lewison J; but implied waiver will not be readily inferred, Smiths Group plc v George Weiss [2002] EWHC 582 (Kaye QC).

  87. 87.

    s 29, AA (1996) (this immunity does not extend to conduct or omissions ‘in bad faith’ nor to the consequences of resignation).

  88. 88.

    H Genn, Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2010), Chap. 3.

  89. 89.

    Ibid, 119.

  90. 90.

    Ibid, 125.

  91. 91.

    (1984) Yale LJ 1073; re-printed in D Galligan (ed), Procedure (Dartmouth, 1992) Chap. 16; see also O Fiss, The Law As It Could Be (New York, 2003); O Fiss and J Resnik, Adjudication and Its Alternatives (Foundation Press, New York, 2003), 481, 488; and see J Resnik, ‘For Owen M Fiss: Some Reflections on the Triumph and Death of Adjudication’ (2003) 58 Miami U L Rev 173.

  92. 92.

    H Genn, ‘Understanding Civil Justice’ (1997) 50 CLP 155, 186–7.

  93. 93.

    eg, the multiplicity of challenges to a compromise in Halpern v Halpern (No 2) [2007] EWCA Civ 291(report at [2007] 3 All ER 478 concerns a specific aspect of the case; consult the online version at [1] ff for the numerous contractual challenges); Farm Assist Limited (in liquidation) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) (2009) [2009] EWHC 1102 (TCC), [2009] BLR 399.

  94. 94.

    One of Jeremy Bentham’s anxieties: S Roberts, ‘Settlement as Civil Justice’ (2000) 63 MLR 739, 743 n 11, W Twining, ‘Alternatives to What?…’ (1993) 56 MLR 380, 384 (examining various theorists’ accounts of the civil process, notably, Bentham, Llewellyn, Fuller, and Damaska).

  95. 95.

    JA Jolowicz, ‘The dilemmas of civil litigation’ in On Civil Procedure (Cambridge University Press, 2000) Chap. 4.

  96. 96.

    H Genn, ‘Understanding Civil Justice’ (1997) 50 CLP 155, 179; see also H Genn, Hard Bargaining: Out of Court Settlement in Personal Injury Actions (Oxford University Press, 1987); H Genn, The Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1999).

  97. 97.

    Paul D Carrington, ‘Teaching Civil Procedure: A Retrospective View’ (1999) 49 Jo of Leg Educ 311, at 328.

  98. 98.

    JIH Jacob, ‘Justice Between Man and Man’ (1984) 34 Jo of Legal Education 268 (cited H Genn, ‘Understanding Civil Justice’ (1997) 50 CLP 155, 185–6).

  99. 99.

    Neil Andrews, ‘The Modern Civil Process in England: Links between Private and Public Forms of Dispute Resolution’ (2009) 14 ZZP Int 3.

  100. 100.

    The ‘Double Helix’ structure of DNA was discovered by Francis Crick and James Dewey Watson (Nobel Prize 1962); the latter is an Honorary Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where the author is a Fellow; and there is a sculpture of the Double Helix within the college’s grounds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clare College, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Andrews .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Andrews, N. (2018). Mediation in England. In: The Three Paths of Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 65. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74832-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74831-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74832-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation