Overview of ADR and Non-Enforceability

The principle that prevents one branch of government from gaining too much power and controls the actions of other branches.

A situation where a single individual holds positions in multiple branches of government, leading to potential conflicts of interest and abuse of power.

The Lord Chancellor (LC) held roles in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This blurred the lines of power and violated the principle of separation of powers.

The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) aimed to address the LC's breaches of SOP by creating separate and independent roles.

The LC's role as Speaker of the House of Lords, where they could influence legislation, was removed.

The LC's role as Head of the Judiciary was replaced by the Lord Chief Justice, leading to a separation of powers within the judicial branch.

The LC lost the power to appoint judges directly. The JAC recommended candidates, and the LC had an indirect, but significant influence on the appointments.

Lord Woolf's reforms aimed to improve efficiency and fairness in the civil justice system. Key reforms included the introduction of the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP), Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), and the Track System for Case Management, along with Part 36 Offers and front-loaded cost.

The Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) encourages parties to resolve disputes before going to court by setting out the steps to take to attempt settlement.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) aim to simplify and streamline court procedures. They are designed to be fair and efficient.

The Track System categorizes civil cases based on complexity, streamlining case management and providing appropriate time limits.

The reforms aimed to reduce delays, increase efficiency, and make the civil justice system more accessible and cost-effective.

Some argue that the reforms, while positive, haven't gone far enough in addressing the complexities and inconsistencies in court procedures. Additionally, the costs have shifted to the front-loaded cost, leading to challenges for parties.

A Part 36 Offer is a formal offer made by one party to settle a case. Accepting such an offer can avoid further costs and delays.

Front-loaded costs in the legal process refer to the costs incurred at the beginning of a case, before it reaches trial. This can raise challenges for parties.

A report commissioned by the Lord Chancellor to assess and recommend reforms to the Civil Justice System in England and Wales.

An aim of the Access to Justice Report to minimise complexity, cost, and delay in legal proceedings.

A structured system of case management designed to ensure efficiency and fairness in civil litigation. It involves categorizing cases by complexity and assigning different tracks based on their value and nature of the dispute.

A method of managing court cases actively, designed to streamline the process and ensure cases are resolved efficiently. It involves setting timetables, deadlines, and managing the process to ensure a prompt resolution.

Efforts to decrease the number of cases by 25% by encouraging ADR for quicker decision-making. It aims to settle cases earlier due to the CPR.

The Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) encourages parties to resolve disputes before going to court. It outlines steps to facilitate settlement and reduces unnecessary litigation.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) aim to simplify and streamline court procedures, making them more efficient and fair.

The Track System categorizes civil cases based on their complexity. This helps in managing cases effectively, ensuring appropriate time limits, and allocating resources efficiently.

The reforms aimed to reduce delays, improve efficiency, and make the civil justice system more affordable and accessible.

Lord Woolf's reforms faced criticism due to a perceived shift towards front-loaded cost, which might create challenges for parties. Additionally, the complexity of court procedures hasn't reduced sufficiently.

A Part 36 Offer is a formal offer made by one party to settle the case. Accepting it can avoid further expenses and delays.

Front-loaded costs refer to the costs incurred at the beginning of a case, before it reaches trial. These costs can create challenges for parties.

A proposal to abolish the county court and give the High Court more jurisdiction to hear all civil cases at first instance. This aims to create a more efficient system by consolidating courts.

The BAR Council's 'Reforming the Civil Litigation' advocate for abolishing PAP citing its contribution to lengthy and expensive legal proceedings, which can be detrimental to litigants.

The Labour Government's 'Focusing Judicial Resources Appropriately' aims to abolish the High Court and allow the County Court to hear all civil cases at first instance unless the cases have exceptionally high features. This aims to prioritize resources effectively and improve the allocation of cases.

A process for resolving disputes outside of traditional court proceedings, aiming for faster, more flexible, and less expensive solutions.

A formal method where a neutral third party makes a binding decision to resolve a dispute between parties.

A process where a neutral third party helps disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

A less formal ADR method where a neutral third party facilitates communication to help parties find solutions.

An independent body that investigates and resolves complaints from individuals against organizations.

A method where parties in commercial court cases are encouraged to try ADR before using traditional court proceedings.

One of the criticisms of ADR is that it lacks the legal expertise and precedent system found in courts.

Another criticism of ADR is the lack of enforceability, meaning there might be difficulties in ensuring parties comply with agreed decisions.

A key benefit of ADR is its flexibility and adaptability to suit different situations and disputes.

A key concern about ADR is the lack of binding precedent, which makes it harder to predict outcomes in future disputes.

A system of courts and legal processes used to resolve disputes between individuals, organizations, and the government, primarily based on precedent established through past court rulings. It's also known as common law.

The process of judges interpreting and applying existing laws to specific cases, creating a body of legal precedents that guide future decisions. This system allows flexibility and evolves over time.

The CJS protects and enforces human rights through legal mechanisms such as the Human Rights Act 1998, allowing individuals to seek redress for violations of their rights.

The CJS can be complex, costly, and time-consuming, often leading to delays in resolving disputes. This can make accessing justice difficult for individuals, especially those with limited resources.

A way of resolving disputes where legal arguments are presented by opposing sides, lawyers play a key role, and court proceedings are formal and technical.

The potential for judges to reinterpret and apply existing laws in a case-specific manner, potentially exceeding their role as impartial interpreters.

A simplified and less formal track within the CJS for resolving claims of £10.000 or less, designed to be faster, more efficient, and less expensive.

The Small Claim Track offers time-saving benefits by resolving smaller claims efficiently through quick hearings, reducing unnecessary delays, and allowing judges to handle more cases effectively.

The Small Claim Track promotes cost-effectiveness by keeping court fees for small claims low and encouraging individuals to represent themselves due to simplified procedures, making access to justice more affordable.

The Small Claim Track offers an informal and simple approach to resolving disputes, minimizing technical legal formalities and encouraging individuals to engage in the process without feeling overwhelmed.

ADR methods generally lack the formal enforceability of court judgments, relying on agreements and settlements instead. They are considered more informal and less legally binding.

The lack of legal expertise, absence of a system of precedent, and limited legal enforcement mechanisms contribute to the perceived limitations of ADR, creating a perception of uncertainty.

Proponents of ADR argue that it offers a more efficient, less adversarial, and potentially less expensive way to resolve disputes. They contend that it encourages parties to focus on finding mutually agreeable solutions.

Critics of ADR argue that it can lead to unequal power dynamics between parties, potentially favoring those with more resources or legal knowledge. They highlight potential concerns about the lack of legal oversight and clarity in outcomes.