Generally, courts are considered the default method of settling civil disputes, especially

in jurisdictions where rules of procedure and judicial independence are well established.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a collective description of conflict management
techniques other than the generic trial process. This essay will evaluate the civil justice
response to “compel” parties to use ADR by examining decided cases and the merits of using
ADR as a dispute resolution method.

Lord Woolf’s 1990 publication encouraged the use of mediation in settling disputes
rather than traditional court processes as the former is more cost and time effective. He
reviewed that a party’s litigation cost for cases under £12500 may well exceed the disputed
amount in 40% of cases. This expense builds a barrier around accessibility to justice. Laypeople
may also be intimidated by the court system as two civil procedures are governing the courts. In
his speech “Mediation-An Integral part of our litigation culture”, Lord Clarke stated that
98% of cases are settled before trial. Lord Clarke was of the view that Lord Woolf’s main
recommendation was to encourage settlement, thus bringing cases to trial to a minimum.

Arbitration is the submission of parties to the judgement of a person to an arbitrator. The

Arbitration Act 1996 holds that courts will typically refuse to deal with contracts with arbitration
agreements. Arbitrators’ ‘awards’ are legally binding and may be enforced through the courts.
Arbitration may be used for international commercial and shipping disputes. Mediation is a
voluntary process that assists parties in reaching an agreement through a neutral third party.
Any binding agreement here can be enforced through a contract. Mediation can be used for
cases like family disputes or employment issues. Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the
third party adopts a more interventionist role in assisting parties to settle. The Advisory,
Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) plays a high-profile conciliation role in resolving
disputes. Negotiation is a quick and cheap way of settling a dispute for small-scale matters, like
between consumers and shopkeepers.

Lord Woolf’s final report shows pressure pushing towards the direction of ADR. Civil
Procedure Rule 1.4 requires courts to undertake case management by providing information
and encourage parties to use ADR where suitable. If there are no reasonable reasons for
refusing to cooperate with a judge’s proposition of following ADR, a financial penalty may be
incurred to the recalcitrant party.

Despite the solid suggestion for the use of ADR demonstrated above, this procedure’s
use was not as frequent between 1996 and 2001. Since 2001, several landmark cases clarified
courts’ position in compelling parties to use ADR. In Cowl v Plymouth City Council, Lord
Woolf held that parties needed to consider ADR before legal proceedings, especially where