The charge that it is defendant PI lawyers who are to blame for the lack of take-up of mediation is a familiar one (see [2007] Gazette, 31 May, 1).


Perhaps it is Professor Dame Hazel Genn's exclusive focus on mediation, rather than other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), that drives her to this conclusion.



ADR by mediation is a costly business. Picking up the telephone or writing a letter making an offer in settlement of a claim is not.



Defendant PI lawyers are enthusiastic about prompt claims resolution. Perhaps the Central London County Court pilot failed because it only offered mediation. The usual direction made by Queen's Bench Division masters that parties must consider ADR, whether it be by negotiation, mediation or settlement by roundtable meeting, is better suited to the realities of personal injury litigation.



I would be interested to see Professor Dame Hazel Genn's valuable research address the comparative cost savings from all forms of ADR, so that the most effective routes to claims' resolution can be identified.



Paul Parke, Beachcroft, Bristol