Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ROBUST ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ROBUST ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS This article investigates and seeks to shed light upon an area which has not received attention in the current literature: the discrepancy which exists in within the English civil justice system between judicial endorsement of ADR and the failure of the courts to translate or reflect that endorsement through making robust costs orders. It will be argued that the courts should be more willing to order a successful party in litigation, but one who has unreasonably refused to engage in ADR, to pay some or all of the unsuccessful party’s costs and this should be done to fulfill two policy objectives. The first is to achieve fairness by reimbursing the unsuccessful party for costs it has had to incur which could have been avoided but for the successful party’s failure to engage in ADR or, at the very least, for failing to engage in ADR which would have had the benefit of narrowing the issues between the parties and allowed the parties to gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments in the event that the parties have to revert to the court process. The second objective is to reinforce the policy of requiring parties to seriously consider ADR and, as envisaged by Lord Woolf, preserve the court process as a last resort. Keywords: ADR; adverse costs orders, judicial discretion; reform http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice Addleton Academic Publishers

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ROBUST ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS

Download PDF
29 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/addleton-academic-publishers/bridging-the-gap-between-alternative-dispute-resolution-and-robust-OjYB0X4t8Q

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Addleton Academic Publishers
Copyright
© 2009 Addleton Academic Publishers
ISSN
1948-9137
eISSN
2162-2752
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article investigates and seeks to shed light upon an area which has not received attention in the current literature: the discrepancy which exists in within the English civil justice system between judicial endorsement of ADR and the failure of the courts to translate or reflect that endorsement through making robust costs orders. It will be argued that the courts should be more willing to order a successful party in litigation, but one who has unreasonably refused to engage in ADR, to pay some or all of the unsuccessful party’s costs and this should be done to fulfill two policy objectives. The first is to achieve fairness by reimbursing the unsuccessful party for costs it has had to incur which could have been avoided but for the successful party’s failure to engage in ADR or, at the very least, for failing to engage in ADR which would have had the benefit of narrowing the issues between the parties and allowed the parties to gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments in the event that the parties have to revert to the court process. The second objective is to reinforce the policy of requiring parties to seriously consider ADR and, as envisaged by Lord Woolf, preserve the court process as a last resort. Keywords: ADR; adverse costs orders, judicial discretion; reform

Journal

Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice – Addleton Academic Publishers

Published: Jan 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.