This time of enforced home working presents various difficulties to those working on contentious matters. How do you conduct remote hearings effectively? How do you interview witnesses effectively?
But a timely case reminds all litigation practitioners to take control of the disclosure process and, in particular, not to allow their clients to select the documents to be disclosed.
In the September 2019 blog, we featured alternative dispute resolution (ADR), placing emphasis on the advance of guidance at High Court level and above, that parties to litigation, who ignore invitations to engage in ADR, do so at their peril as to the costs of the action, even if they win (see the blog and Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust and PGF II SA v OMFS). An unreasonable refusal to use ADR (described in the glossary to the CPR as a “Collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process”), is likely to lead to the imposition of penalties on the offender. This usually occurs in relation to mediation, the best known form of ADR, but it can also arise where there has been a failure to engage in early neutral evaluation (ENE) or a “without prejudice” joint settlement meeting (JSM). Continue reading
