Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Neutral Evaluation (ENE) is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) whereby the parties to a dispute invite a neutral third party to give an opinion on the merits of the case (or particular aspects of the case) usually with a view to encouraging
settlement or otherwise narrowing the issues in dispute.
The evaluator will generally be a lawyer or an expert in the relevant field. The use of judicial ENE is less common; indeed, some parties (and their legal representatives) may not be aware that this option is available.
In this post, we consider the use of ENE in the Chancery Division as well as how parties may provide for judicial ENE in their draft directions.
Both the TCC Guide and the Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide encourage the use judicial ENE within those courts, yet the Chancery Guide contains no equivalent provision (although the use of ADR in general terms is encouraged).
In his 2013 ‘Chancery Modernisation Review: Final Report’, Lord Justice Briggs endorsed ENE as a ‘valuable tool’ for encouraging settlement in a range of Chancery cases, but there have been no formal developments or pronouncements
since regarding the use of ENE in the Chancery Division.
A recent decision from Mr Justice Norris in the Chancery Division suggests that judicial ENE is alive and well in the Chancery Division, with the judge commenting, with approval, that ENE is being adopted in the Birmingham and Manchester District Registries.
In Seals v Williams  EWHC 1829 (Ch), Norris J in the Chancery Division considered the use of ENE in an acrimonious inheritance dispute following a failed attempt at mediation. In a move that Norris J described as ‘commendable’,
the parties’ legal representatives proposed the use of ENE to the court. The following advantages of ENE were highlighted in the judgment:
‘The advantage of such a process over mediation itself is that a judge will evaluate the respective parties’ cases in a direct way and may well provide an authoritative (albeit provisional) view of the legal issues at the heart of the case
and an experienced evaluation of the strength of the evidence available to deploy in addressing those legal issues. The process is particularly useful where the parties have very differing views of the prospect of success and perhaps an inadequate
understanding of the risks of litigation itself.’
Having identified that judicial ENE can be requested in the TCC and Commercial Court, the judge stated that its ‘precise foundation’ is unclear. The judge pointed to CPR 3.1(m), which authorises the court to ‘take any other step or make
any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective’, but observed that the CPR couldn’t supply the court with a jurisdiction that was otherwise lacking.
In his view, the expression of provisional views, with a view to assisting the parties reduces the areas of dispute and the general scope of the argument, is an ‘inherent part of the judicial function’, which, with respect, must be right.
The judge continued that the expression of provisional views during a hearing is not dependent in any way on the consent of the parties (indeed, it is often the case that such views are expressed in practice), but the expression of views about the ultimate
outcome of a case at a hearing specially convened for that purpose is ‘slightly different’.
Norris J stated that it was part of the judicial function for a judge to accede to a request from the parties that they express provisional views on ‘particular hypotheses’ or upon the judge’s overall impression of the case so far. Norris
J said that judges don’t have to accede to such requests, and it is assumed, although the judge did not address this specifically, that all parties would have to consent to a judicial ENE in the Chancery Division as this is a requirement of
ENE in both the TCC and Commercial Court.
The court also provided an insight into how, practically speaking, parties may provide for judicial ENE. In Seals, the parties proposed directions that:
In the absence of formal guidance, parties wishing to request judicial ENE in the Chancery Division may wish to take note of the points above when drafting their proposed directions for the court.
If, as Norris J’s judgment suggests, ENE is being adopted in the Chancery Division, the time seems ripe for the Chancery Division to include guidance on the use of ENE in the Chancery Guide and act on Briggs LJ’s recommendation that a judicial
ENE option be developed for the Chancery Division.
Have you encountered ENE in the Chancery Division? If so, what are your views on the process?
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Barry specialises in international arbitration and commercial litigation. He trained and practised at Jones Day before joining Pinsent Masons. At LexisNexis, Barry is Head of Arbitration and Head of the Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution Group.
In practice, Barry’s work included commercial, aviation and technology arbitrations pursuant to international arbitral rules, involving UK and international clients. He also has a background in general commercial, civil fraud and IT litigation, including experience before the High Court. While in private practice, Barry worked with a broad range of clients from the private and public sectors.
At LexisNexis, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution Group, Barry’s content work focuses on the law and practice of international commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration. In addition to his work for Lexis®PSL, Barry contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog and New Law Journal on litigation and arbitration matters
0330 161 1234