Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a term used to describe non-court-based processes for resolving disputes. ADR processes can take different forms, eg negotiation, conciliation, mediation, early neutral evaluation (ENE) and arbitration, and its use is increasingly encouraged within the courts and tribunals system, as well as becoming more widely-used, generally. This Practice Note gives an overview of the Acas arbitration scheme and the use of arbitration in cross-border disputes, and provides links to example arbitration clauses for use in employment contracts. It also includes an overview of ADR processes available specifically in the employment tribunal, such as Acas conciliation, judicial mediation, judicial assessment and dispute resolution appointments. In the employment context, ADR can either be arranged privately by the parties or be part of the employment tribunal process. The ADR processes most commonly encountered are: • negotiation • conciliation • mediation • early neutral evaluation • arbitration This Practice Note provides an introduction to what each of these processes involves, signposts further, more detailed, information where relevant and includes an overview

Dispute Resolution analysis: This was a hearing of the claimants’ (David Hamon and others) application for a group litigation order (GLO) and the defendant’s (University College London, hereinafter the ‘UCL’) application for a stay of proceedings. The application for a stay was successful and, as a consequence, the defendant’s application for a GLO was adjourned. The court had to consider whether the claims against UCL should be allowed to proceed or whether the claimants must first engage with UCL’s internal complaints process and the complaints process of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIR). The OIR is the operator of the independent student complaints scheme in England and Wales. This judgment considers whether the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be pursued even where liability is denied in legal proceedings and where one party is reluctant to engage in this process. Written by Shakira Choudhury of Lanier, Longstaff, Hedar and Roberts LLP.

This guide explains the main ways of resolving a civil dispute outside a court of law, often referred to as ‘alternative dispute resolution’ (ADR). Some courts use the term ‘negotiated dispute resolution’ (NDR) to refer to the resolution of a dispute by alternative means, but for ease of reference, the term ADR is used in this guide. It is intended to help you understand the different non-court dispute resolution options that may be available to you, so that you can decide, with our advice, how you would like to proceed. This guide provides general information only. We will advise you separately on which option may be most appropriate for your particular dispute. What is alternative dispute resolution? ADR (sometimes called non-court dispute resolution) is a collective term for ways of resolving a dispute outside a court of law. Instead of asking a judge to decide the case, the parties use other processes to try to reach a resolution, sometimes with the help of an independent third party. ADR can be used at any stage of a dispute.

Any collective investment undertaking, including investment compartments of an AIF, that raises capital from a number of investors with a view to investing it in accordance with a defined investment policy for the benefit of those investors, and which is not a fund covered by Directive 2009/65/EC on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (AIFMD, Directive 2011/61/EU, art 4(1)(a)). An AIF may invest in traditional or alternative investments and may be private or listed.

A legal person whose regular business is managing one or more AIFs (AIFMD, Directive 2011/61/EU, art 4(1)(b)). ‘Managing AIFs’ means performing at least portfolio management or risk management for one or more AIFs (AIFMD, Directive 2011/61/EU, art 4(1)(w) and Annex 1, point 1(a) and (b)).

Alternative investment market is a sub-market of the stock-exchange'>London Stock Exchange. It allows the shares of small, mid-cap and growing companies to be traded with a more flexible regulatory system than is applicable to the main market.

An investment that is not one of the three traditional asset types (stocks, bonds and cash). Most alternative investment assets are held by institutional investors or accredited, high-net-worth individuals because of their complex nature and relative lack of liquidity. Alternative investments include infrastructure, managed futures, real estate, commodities and derivatives contracts, private equity, cryptoassets, debt, tangible assets (art and wine).

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case provides a useful summary of the guiding principles in respect of an application for an alternative method of service pursuant to CPR 6.15. It also considers the added complexities in respect of a claim in which service is required to be effected outside of the jurisdiction. It makes clear that there is a distinction when considering alternative service between countries which are party to the 1965 Hague Service Convention or other bilateral treaties, and those which are not. It further provides guidance in respect of the various factors which a court will take into consideration when weighing up what amounts to a ‘good reason’ to allow for alternative service. In this instance, there was a good reason to permit alternative service. The defendants were fully aware of the claims against them and had a legal team fully up to speed with the litigation as a whole. It was desirable in the interests of justice for all claims to advance together, so far as possible, and not to be unduly delayed. Written by Georgia Whiting, barrister, 4 King’s Bench Walk.

While it is necessary to ensure that insolvency proceedings are properly served on all parties, there is no uniform approach to service and each insolvency process often has its own procedure for effecting service of documents. For further reading on the insolvency processes and service, see: • Bankruptcy—overview • Compulsory liquidation—overview • Administration—overview • Practice Note: Service of documents in insolvency proceedings—how service is effected, what needs to be served and when • Practice Note: What you can do if you cannot effect service of insolvency proceedings on the respondent Complications arise when court documents cannot be served on parties to insolvency proceedings. In these instances (and absent a court order) steps need to be taken to ensure that proper service is effected, which may involve making an application to court seeking permission to serve by an alternative method. Below is a summary of the methods of service of documents in relation to bankruptcy petitions, winding-up petitions, administration applications and applications made in insolvency proceedings generally. Bankruptcy Document Method When/how Authority Bankruptcy petition

Alternative pleading describes the procedural practice of putting forward two or more different, and potentially inconsistent, factual or legal bases for a claim or defence, so that if one fails another may succeed. It allows a party to say, in effect, “if not A, then B”, without admitting either as definitively true at the outset.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the Civil Procedure Rules permit a party to advance inconsistent cases in the alternative, provided there is a proper factual foundation and the statements are made in good faith. Irish and Scots procedure follow the same broad approach, though the terminology and detailed rules differ (for example, averments in the alternative in Scotland).Alternative pleading is typically used where the claimant is unsure which legal characterisation (such as contract, tort/delict, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment) the court will prefer, or where the precise facts (e.g. formation of the contract, identity of the contracting party, or causation) are genuinely unclear pre-trial.Courts in all four jurisdictions will strike out abusive or speculative alternatives, but otherwise accept alternative pleading as a legitimate case‑management and litigation risk‑management tool.

Provisions in Part 8 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), as inserted by Schedule 5 of The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEEA 2015) give private companies and LLPs the option of keeping certain information on the central register kept by the Registrar of Companies instead of keeping it on their own registers.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Companies can no longer elect to hold information about their officers on the central register. The option to hold information about secretaries, directors and persons with significant control on the central register was removed on 18 November 2025. The option to hold information about members was removed on 26 January 2026. Companies must still hold a register of shareholders (members) either at the company’s registered office address, or single alternative inspection location (SAIL). This Practice Note sets out the rules relating to the option for companies and limited liability partnerships to elect to keep certain information only on the central register at Companies House. Section 51 and Schedule 2 to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 repealed this regime. This Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. Which registers may be maintained centrally? The option to keep information on the central register at Companies House applies to the following company registers: