Bryan Clark reflects on oversupply in the market & commends the Civil Justice Council proposals for change
- A joined-up approach is likely to produce the most effective results for ensuring a successful ADR future.
It is some four decades since mediation and other emerging processes from the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) movement of 1960s US began to impact upon these shores. Significant strides have since been made. Training programmes are legion. Mediation has been embedded within civil court rules since the Woolf Reforms were enacted in the late 1990s. A glut of pilot, in-court mediation schemes has been introduced. Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) are an established feature of family justice.
Yet mediation still, perhaps represents an opportunity lost. Supply outstrips demand. Misunderstanding of the process continues unabated. Barriers to development remain to be surmounted. Matters are not straightforward, however. Wider policy issues and controversies are at play. While excessive adversarialism can lead to economic waste and emotional distress for litigants, the imposition of ADR may jar with fundamental rights to access formal justice. Equally, given the perennial need
