Although settlement, rather than litigation, poses a number of problems for a civil justice system these matters have been largely resolved by Lord Woolf’s reforms Assess the validity of the statement
Candidate number: 131183 Student registration number: 120161429
“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser, in fees, expenses, and waste of time” (Lincoln’s Lessons for Lawyers, Thomas Stipanowich)
Introduction A civilised system of government demands that a means for just and peaceful dispute resolution be made available to all citizens to determine their civil rights1. A civil justice system sustaining social stability and economic goals is of vital importance for any legal tradition (Genn, 2008). Though courts are the ultimate institution upholding the objectives of civil justice, dispute resolution is not necessarily court centred. It needs neither be a confrontation between two parties. In fact, most of the civil disputes are settled out of court. This essay takes the view that settlement acts rather as an integral part of the civil justice system than poses problems for it. To understand this, it is necessary to see the civil justice process reality - complex, constantly changing, dealing with multiple adverse interests and immersed in social justice and democratic issues. The Woolf Reforms are said to have revolutionized the civil justice system in England since the 26th of April 1999. The reforms have had a profound effect on the development of the culture of settlement. Ten years after, there is a broad agreement that they have been largely successful2. One of the widely approved effects of the reforms is a more co-operative approach to disputes. In other words, the Woolf reforms succeeded in encouraging even further the already popular settlements. In seeking a settlement, the parties of a dispute take the matter in their hands attempting to find a mutually acceptable solution faster, with greater liberty, and at a lower cost. Advocates of this alternative consider it to promote values of individual autonomy and liberty. However, there are doubts about settlements. The two major criticisms relate to access to justice and the rule of law. Settlements may be seen as interfering with the main function of the courts – to state what the law is. The complexity, cost and delays of the court system may be seen as pressuring parties to reach a settlement thus forfaiting their “day in court”. To assess the validity of the statement above, this essay will first consider the role settlement plays in the civil justice system. Next, the problems identified in the English civil justice will be outlined. This will set the ground for an examination of the nature of the Woolf reforms and their impact.
Lord Diplock in Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau and Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corp.  AC 909, HL, p.976, cited in Genn, 2008 2 New Law Journal, 13 March 2009, Michael Zander, More harm than good?, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/zander-woolf 1
Some background on settlement In Anglo-Saxon history, there have been frequent tensions between the efforts of the king to impose court systems and the desire of communities to settle their own disputes. In the early US history, lawyers have been outlawed because the colonies desired to work things out among themselves (Ide III, 1993). In the last century in England, certain groups of stakeholders have traditionally turned to out-of-court ways to resolve their disputes. In 1838, the attempts to simplify and speed up the proceedings were not sufficient...
Bibliography: Boulle, A. (2011) Alternative Dispute Resolution, Access to Justice Conference “Towards delivering accessible quality justice for all”. Cornford, T. (2000) “The New Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review”, Web Journal of current legal issues, vol. 5. Cownie, F., Bradney, A., Burton, M. (2010) The English Legal System in Context, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowell, K. (2009) Woolf reforms: lawyers continue to wrangle over merits a decade on, The Lawyer, http://www.thelawyer.com/woolf-reforms-lawyers-continue-towrangle-over-merits-a-decade-on/1000991.article (accessed 01-04-2013) Eliott, C., Quinn, F. (2012) English Legal System, 13th ed. London: Pearson. Forsyth, A. (2012) Workplace conflict resolution in Australia: the dominance of the public dispute resolution framework and the limited role of ADR. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:3, 476-494 Gearey, A., Morrison, W., Jago, R. (2009) The Politics of the Common Law. Perspectives, Rights, Processes, Institutions. Routledge-Cavendish. Genn, H. (1999) Paths to Justice: What People Do and Think About Going to Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Genn, H. (2005) Civil Justice since the Woolf reforms - how useful is ADR?, Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA): Scottish Consumer Council Seminar. Genn, H. (2005) Solving civil justice problems: what might be best? Seminar paper. Scottish Council seminar on civil justice, 19-January-2005. Genn, H. (2008) Judging civil justice, The Hamlyn Lectures Goriely, T., Moorhead, R., Abrams, P. (2002) More Civil Justice? The impact of the Woolf reforms on pre-action behaviour, The Law Society and Civil Justice Council: Research Study 43 Goriely, T., Williams, T. (1997) “Resolving Civil Disputes: Choosing between out-ofcourt schemes and litigation. A review of the literature”, Lord Chancellor’s Department Research Series No. 3/97 . Great Britain, Lord Chancellor 's Department, Research Programme Green, Cameron (2010) ADR: Where did the 'alternative ' go? Why mediation should not be a mandatory step in the litigation process. ADR Bulletin, Vol. 12: No. 3, Article 2. Gu, W. (2010) Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong: Challenges and Opportunities for development of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Hong Kong Law Journal 40/43, pp.43-64. HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Lands Chamber: form MED01, ADR and Mediation, November 2011, accessed 4/4/13.
Hodges, C., Benöhr, I., Creutzfeld-Banda, N. (2011) The Hidden World of Consumer ADR: Redress and Behaviour, The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society Hodges, C., Benöhr, I., Creutzfeld-Banda, N. (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Oxford: Hart Publishing Holland, J.A., Webb, J.S. (2010) Learning Legal Rules, 7th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ide III, R.W. (1993) ADR: A Giant Step Toward the Future. Dispute Resolution Journal, December 1993, pp20-23. McGregor, L. (2012) The Role of HRIs in Advancing ADR in Human Rights (conference paper). Rights and Wrongs? Developments in Access to Justice, The 9th Legal Services Research Centre International Research Conference, University of Oxford. Mistelis, L. A. (2001) ADR in England and Wales. American Review on International Arbitration, vol 12, pp: 167-170. Pleasence, P., Genn, H., Balmer, N.J., Buck, A., O’Grady, A. (2003) Causes of Action: First Findings of the LSRC Periodic Survey. Journal of Law and Society, 30(1), pp.11. Preysner, J. (2003) Research and conclusions, Civil Justice Council working group on costs. Redfern, Michael (2011) ADR: Where did the 'alternative ' go? A response. ADR Bulletin, Vol. 12: No. 4, Article 4. Spencer, D. (2000) Court given power to order ADR in civil actions. Law Society Journal 71 at 72, 38(9). Spencer, D., Hardy, S. (2009) ADR in Australia, 2nd Edition. Thomson. Sternlight, J.R. (2007) “Is alternative dispute resolution consistent with the rule of law? Lessons from abroad”, De Paul Law Review, 56-569, pp.569-592 Zander, M. (2000) The state of justice. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Zander, M. (2009) More harm than good? New Law Journal; http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/zander-woolf (accessed 01-04-2013)
Please join StudyMode to read the full document