We examine from our collective experience the effectiveness of the remote mediations we have conducted and test whether the reasons put forward for not engaging in remote mediation might survive a ‘Halsey’ application for relief from costs by an unsuccessful party at the end of a contested case.
This new article, written by Michel Kallipetis QC with contributions from all our mediators, looks at Halsey through the lens of the new reality in which we find ourselves of online mediation and a change in working environments for all. Michel was counsel for ADR Group in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust. Phillip Howell-Richardson instructed Michel on behalf of the ADR Group. In a landmark decision handed down by the Court of Appeal on 11 May 2004, it was decided that the courts do have jurisdiction to impose costs sanctions against successful litigants on the grounds that they refused to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).
This monograph examines some of the arguments put forward by those who ‘prefer to wait for in person mediations to be resumed’. We examine from our collective experience the effectiveness of the remote mediations we have conducted and test whether the reasons put forward for not engaging in remote mediation might survive a ‘Halsey’ application for relief from costs by an unsuccessful party at the end of a contested case. Food for thought…….
Please click the link below to read the article.