Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—Jackson Reforms [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—Jackson Reforms [Archived]
  • Need for and purpose of April 2013 reforms to ADR
  • Summary of recommendations
  • Scope of Jackson’s review and his conclusions
  • Judicial use of ADR
  • ADR publicity campaign and handbook

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—Jackson Reforms [Archived]

Note: This Practice Note is of largely historical interest.

In January 2010 Lord Justice Jackson published his Review of Civil litigation Costs: Final Report, see Practice Note: Jackson final costs report [Archived]. While he did not recommend compulsory Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR), his report does have consequences for those engaged in litigation who should, at every stage, consider ADR.

Need for and purpose of April 2013 reforms to ADR

The terms of reference for Lord Justice Jackson’s review included a requirement to ‘establish the effect case management procedures have on costs and consider whether changes in process and/or procedure could bring about more proportionate costs’.

Lord Justice Jackson has identified ADR as one of a number of areas in which the cost of litigation could potentially be significantly reduced. He has observed that ADR:

  1. ‘has a vital role to play in reducing the costs of civil disputes, by fomenting the early settlement of cases’, but that it was

  2. ‘under-used and its potential benefits are not as widely known as they should be’

Summary of recommendations

Jackson LJ’s recommendations for ADR are, in brief, that:

  1. there should be a ‘serious campaign’ to make sure litigation lawyers, judges and other users are more aware of the benefits of ADR

  2. a handbook should be produced explaining what ADR is, how it can help and including details of ADR

Popular documents