UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Alex Cook, Helix Law
3.3 Advantages of Arbitration No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.4 Disadvantages of Arbitration No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.5 Arbitral Institutions No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.6 Length of Proceedings No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.7 Regulation of Arbitration No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.8 Court Powers No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.9 Court Intervention No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. 3.10 Relief No response has been provided in this jurisdiction. A range of formal ADR procedures are available for resolving commercial disputes outside litigation and arbitration. The most widely used is commercial mediation, in which an independent neutral mediator is selected jointly by the parties, who then seeks to facilitate a voluntary settlement. Mediation is flexible, confidential, and commonly used at any stage of a dispute. Other formal mechanisms include expert determi- nation, where a neutral expert (often in technical or valuation disputes) issues a binding decision, and early neutral evaluation (ENE), in which an independ- ent third party (often a judge or senior practitioner) provides a non-binding assessment of the merits to encourage settlement. 4. Other ADR Methods 4.1 ADR Procedures Adjudication is also used in the construction sector, where a neutral adjudicator gives a temporarily bind- ing decision on a fast-track basis. That decision can
be converted into a binding court order. Adjudication is only available for construction disputes. These procedures are well-established in commercial practice and are frequently used either alongside or instead of litigation, particularly where parties seek speed, confidentiality, and cost-efficiency. 4.2 Requirements to Engage in ADR There is no strict requirement demanding or requir- ing that parties use ADR, but there is a strong public policy towards use of ADR to reduce pressure on the courts. ADR is strongly encouraged and the courts can now order parties to engage in ADR. If a party unreasonably refuses to participate, the court may impose costs sanctions, which can include order- ing a winning party to pay the losing party’s costs. Engagement in ADR is expected in commercial dis- putes. 4.3 Impact of ADR ADR runs in tandem with court proceedings on a par- allel “track”. Litigation can continue at the same time as ADR. Often, because of the time and cost pres- sures of running both processes at the same time, it might be agreed to “stay” or pause litigtion for ADR to take place; however, there is no requirement to take this approach. Often ADR will be most effective when there is time or other pressure (via litigation). This is very case- and fact-specific for this reason. Engaging in ADR can pause or delay proceedings. Use of litigation can be important for ADR to be effec- tive not least so that the consequences of not com- promising (further time and costs being required to litigate) are clear to all parties. The timing of ADR is therefore important. Early ADR and mediation can be effective. Early ADR attempts usually involve nego- tiation, with mediation attempted after the issuance of court proceedings and when the parties’ cases have crystalised. In this way, it is clear what case the defendant has to meet, and the issues in dispute, as well as the steps (and costs) required to trial, are more certain. ADR is a continuing obligation rather than a once-and-for-all approach.
499 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook