ADR and dispute resolution clauses

The Practice Notes in this subtopic provide users with an understanding of what alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, the different types or forms of ADR that are available and the key differences between them, as well as considering the current status of ADR and future plans for encouraging its use as an effective means of resolving civil disputes otherwise than in the court system. It also considers the different types of dispute resolution clause, including those providing for different forms of ADR (including tiered and hybrid clauses), which parties may agree to include in their agreements.

Although the Commercial Court Guide and the Circuit Commercial Court Guide refer instead to negotiated dispute resolution (NDR), for ease of reference the term ADR is generally used throughout the content in this subtopic.

Mediation is the most recognised form of ADR and is dealt with in: Mediation—overview.

For cross-border disputes, see also: Cross-border ADR—overview.

The importance of ADR as a key element of the English civil justice system cannot be overlooked:

•
as confirmed in the Keynote Speech delivered by Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Ministry of Justice sets new personal injury discount rate at positive 0.5%

The Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has announced a new personal injury discount rate of positive 0.5% for England and Wales, to be effective from 11 January 2025. This new rate will be applied when calculating lump sum compensation payments for future financial losses in personal injury cases. The Lord Chancellor concluded that it would be inappropriate to adopt a dual or multiple rate at this review and that the rate should be set at a single rate of positive 0.5%. This decision follows a comprehensive review process under the Damages Act 1996, which included two Calls for Evidence, consultation with statutory consultees and evidence from an independent expert panel. A Statutory Instrument will be laid in Parliament to implement this change. A full statement of reasons has been made available.

UT considers taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request (HMRC v The Taxpayer and Others)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes expert analyses of the CJC’s final report on Pre-Action Protocols and the MoJ’s statutory review of whiplash injury regulations. We bring you details of the 175th Practice Direction update and the DHSC’s findings from the call for evidence on the statutory duty of candour. We also include our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Reforming the Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocols

Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence analysis: The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has concluded its extensive review of the various existing pre-action protocols (PAPs). Here we focus specifically on the Personal Injury PAPs.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News