Courts can order parties to engage in ADR at any stage of proceedings
The Court of Appeal has held that courts can lawfully stay proceedings at any stage, in order to allow (or compel) parties to engage in non-court based alternative dispute resolution.
Background
The case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council is not an employment-related dispute. However, the Court of Appeal judgment in the case marks a potential turning point for all forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including in the context of Tribunal litigation.
The case relates to a neighbour dispute and nuisance claim between an individual and a council, in respect of damage caused by Japanese knotweed. Mr Churchill issued proceedings against the council without first making use of the council's complaints procedure. The council applied for the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow for the procedure to be followed.
At first instance the stay application was dismissed on the basis that the court could not compel an unwilling party to engage in ADR. The council appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal judgment
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It found that the court does have the power to lawfully stay proceedings for, or to order to parties to engage in a non-court based dispute resolution procedure. This must not impair the essence of the right to a judicial hearing, so that if the ADR fails, the litigation can resume. It must also be proportionate to the aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at a reasonable cost. The Court of Appeal stressed that mediation, early neutral evaluation and other means of non-court based dispute resolution are generally cheaper and quicker than court-based solutions, and that even with initially unwilling parties mediation can often be successful.
Learning points
In the context of the Employment Tribunal, there are four types of ADR which are available to encourage parties to resolve cases by agreement. These are ACAS conciliation, judicial mediation, judicial assessment, and dispute resolution appointments.
In this judgment, the Court of Appeal has given a clear endorsement of the benefits of ADR. Against this background and given the court's wide discretion to order parties to engage in ADR at any stage of proceedings, parties may need to think even more carefully about what form of ADR might be appropriate in their case, and when might be the best time to embark on ADR.
For more information or advice on alternative dispute resolution, please contact Michael Delaney in our Employment team on 01923 919 316 or complete the form below.