Mediation provided by judges in Employment Tribunal cases has failed to achieve the anticipated time and cost savings over unmediated cases, the results of a pilot scheme have revealed.

The Ministry of Justice piloted a judicial mediation service for Employment Tribunal discrimination cases which started between June 2006 and March 2007. The pilots took place in Newcastle, central London and Birmingham.

Under the scheme, judges engaged in a form of ‘facilitative mediation’, aiming to help the two disputing parties to reach an agreement through an informal process. The judges mediated cases that were not part of their own caseload and, as mediators, were instructed not to impose their own views on the nature of any potential agreement.

The MoJ had expected that judicial mediation would help cases settle earlier, perhaps without recourse to a formal hearing. However, analysis of the pilot revealed that mediation had ‘no discernible, statistically significant effect’ on the number of cases settled within a set time period, or resolved without a formal hearing. It also found that judicial mediation, far from cutting the cost of matters, actually carried net costs to the parties of £880 per case.

More positively, 60% of employers and 39% of claimants who undertook the mediation felt it was ‘very effective’ in bringing the case closer to resolution, whether or not they settled during the mediation. Some claimants ‘particularly welcomed’ the non-financial aspects of the awards achieved, including saving the employment relationship and improving their ‘psychological well-being’.

The report said positive comments on the tribunal judges were ‘common’, but where there were negative comments, many of these related to the judges being ‘too distant or detached’.

The study concluded that judicial mediation was ‘an expensive process to administer’ and that the costs were not offset by the estimated direct or indirect benefits. It recommended that the service should not be rolled out in its present form.