Report comment

I agree with the foregoing comments, civil litigation has become protracted, expensive and exhaustive, it is not a process that many litigants’ enjoy. As suggested in the article mediation has a reputation for being a cost and time efficient dispute resolution, agreeable to both parties – something incomparable in a trial setting. Having a mandatory model of mediation will not preclude mediation, rather, it will act as a pre-action protocol wherein litigants’ will have the chance to settle in an informal and pressure-free zone. If they cannot agree, then of course they may ‘have their day at court’.’ The CJEU has held that mandatory schemes do not infringe the right to a fair trial. The EU has even introduced a Directive signalling its commendation of mediation (Directive 2008/52/EC).

However, the suggested model is not trouble-free. While mediation is known to be advantageous, its success has, in my opinion, been predicated on the fact that it is voluntary (outside of the family juxtaposition, of course). Litigant’s whom elect to use the model do so with an open mind, and a desire to settle the dispute, where there is compulsion, it may not meet the needs of litigants. And what it a litigant does not wish to go through the ADR/mediation route? Will s/he be sanctioned by means of financial orders?

Then, of course, you have the question of the quasi-judicial function that a mediator will carry out (comparable to Judge Rinder in the foregoing comment) – is this really a suitable substitution for a judge? Will they have to carry extra-qualifications or have better training? Will the fact that mediation carries no binding force open up a battlefield for further legal complexities? How can parties’ whom are obliged to undertake this form get a amiable settlement when a claim is so convoluted that it requires the knowledge of the court? The court which every litigant has the right to access through fundamental common law traditions – it may be argued that compulsion is not a prelude, but it is surely a burden to a litigant who wishes to rely on the court, but instead is obliged to undergo mediation or face financial sanction?

The question is, whether or not the hypothetical model is one which is prudent, consistent with legal agendas and less adversarial in a nature that will encourage parties’ to reach an absolute cordial settlement. My guess is that yes, a mediation system would be beneficial. In situations such as contract disputes and possession claims it may work. However, the issue of compulsion and the procedural and regulatory implications surrounding it will need to be better defined, in the process of its commencement, of course. However, where the knowledge and the nature of a court demands – for reasons of perplexing circumstances or intricate legalities – then it is best left to the judicial forum to determine liability.

Just my opinion, anyway. The bottom line is that the system is currently getting inaccessible for litigants-in-person who simply do not have the financial backing to divulge into the realms of litigation to exercise their rights, as built from historical customs. It certainly requires transparency and appropriate fiscal management which is alluring to all parties’ (subjective, of course). The legal aid reforms and the recent 5 percent civil levy have, ostensibly, demised the opportunity for a party to seek lawful reparation, without having to access a CFA, of course.