public sector - a culture change? - cedr.com · public sector - a culture change? pages 6 & 7....

ResolutionsIssue number 32

Summer 2003

www.cedr.co.uk

4 5

Keypeople -

Tony

Curtis

Voluntary

mediation

increases by

50 per cent

Introducing

mediation

into Slovakia

_

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

_

_

_

_

1210

Representing

clients in

mediation

9

Insurers

take

note

Public sector -a culture change?

Pages 6 & 7

Resolutions - Issue number 32, Summer 20032

eye on the press

The reality is that large numbers

of matters lend themselves to

mediation and therefore it is now

vital that all litigators take

active steps to gain experience of

the process sufficient to convince

themselves of its efficacy.

New Law Journal, 28 March 2003

Where is the myth that

mediation is not relevant to the

shipping industry coming from?

Lloyds List, 7 May 2003

The message is clear and

although those promoting

CAMS [Court of Appeal Mediation

Scheme] emphasise that it is

still voluntary ... the implicit or,

if one accepts Lightman J’s

formulation, explicit, threat is

there for all to see - “take an

offer of mediation seriously or

face the consequences.”

Legal Week, 20 March 2003

The ruling [Cable & Wireless v

IBM plc] sends a clear message

that courts will use their

discretion to stay proceedings or

in some other way manage the

litigation timetable if there is

any chance of an out-of-court

settlement.

The Times, 26 November 2002

We are finding ADR increasingly common as an efficient

method of dispute resolution; clients are thinking about it as

a first option more than they did a few years ago ... more people

are aware of it - more people seriously consider it.

Berwin Leighton Paisner, Law Society Gazette, 9 May 2003

CPR updateincludes newrequirementsto consider

mediationThe 30th update to the Civil

Procedure Rules, effective

from 1 April 2003, issued

new requirements for the

consideration of mediation

in pre-action behaviour.

The update considerably enlarges

the terms of the Pre-action Protocol

Practice Direction. Even in non-protocol

cases, parties to a potential dispute are

now required to ‘follow a reasonable

procedure’ intended to avoid litigation,

and not to proceed on the assumption

that litigation is inevitable.

The update also uses the word mediation

for the first time (under the heading

‘Pre-action behaviour in other cases’).

These additions reinforce mediation as

being firmly part of the civil procedure

landscape and once again give the

general message that it would be very

unwise not to consider mediation for

resolution of a dispute before turning

to litigation.

Further information can be found at

www.cedr.co.uk.

The Alder Hey settlement has

taken mediation to a ‘whole

new level’.

Law Society Gazette, 9 May 2003

The mediation of the Alder Hey

organ scandal could be the

template for future settlements.

The Lawyer, 7 April 2003

Perhaps the time has come for

legal advisers to put their

scepticism aside and consider

whether clients’ underlying needs

can best be met by using the

FSA’s mediation scheme.

Ultimately the only way to see

whether or not the system works

is if regulated firms and individuals

are prepared to try it.

Legal Week, 9 January 2003

“The legal environment has

changed. ADR cannot now be

dismissed as a fad. The courts

have stated that mediation is a

firmly established, significant

and growing facet of English

procedure.”

In-house Lawyer, February 2003

www.cedr.co.uk Resolutions - Issue number 32, Summer 2003 3

ForewordKarl Mackie

Chief Executive

Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution

This has been a bitter/sweet

quarter for CEDR. Bitter because

we all lost a very dear colleague

and one of our best mediators.

Roger Tabakin’s fitting tribute

(back page) to Tony Curtis is

appreciated by us all and our

thoughts go to Jill, his wife, and his

family. Tony will be sorely missed

but not forgotten as he stamped

his quality both in the personal

feedback systems, applied within

CEDR training, and in CEDR’s

reputation for identifying highly

effective mediators.

On a more positive note we have

seen a noticeable culture change with

mediation increasingly being viewed as

part of the mainstream of effective

dispute resolution.

The latest annual CEDR Solve commercial

mediation statistics reveal a substantial

increase in the number of parties using

mediation voluntarily, with a 50 per cent

increase in those mediating by mutual

agreement, a figure which is partially

offset by a decline in court-ordered/

agreed-stay mediations.

We believe that the significant decisions

made by the courts over the past year,

along with the growing awareness of the

benefits of mediation, have prompted

parties to enter the mediation process

by their own initiative. There is also

evidence that organisations have become

more sophisticated in their approach to

mediation, with the number of scheme-

based mediations having risen by

62 per cent.

There has also been a reported increase

in the use of ADR in the public sector

(see pages 6 and 7). The public sector is

a good example of leadership embracing

the fundamental principles of dispute

resolution from top to bottom and

marks an increased sophistication in

the market place.

Our dispute resolution advisers are

now rarely asked to explain the

mediation process per se, rather the

key issues including significance of

timing, process design and mediator

selection. In response to this, we have

revised and rewritten our Representing

Clients in Mediation course, placing far

more emphasis on the complex aspects

of mediation,tactics that may be

employed by more sophisticated users

and how to maximise the effectiveness

of the client’s contribution.

It is this greater engagement of clients

which will fuel the next phase of growth.

“Recent developments in

mediation practice are

encouraging and I am

confident that we will

see a further phase of

accelerated development.”


CEDR Solve commercial mediationstatistics 2002/2003

Settlement rate

remains steady

at 78 per cent,

with the major

proportion settling

on the day

95 per cent of cases

were conducted in

one day (388 cases)

89 per cent of cases

were two-party

actions

50 per cent increasein voluntary mediation

The latest annual CEDR Solve commercial

mediation statistics reveal a substantial

increase in the number of parties using

mediation voluntarily with a 50 per cent

rise in those mediating by mutual

agreement. CEDR Solve has seen an

overall 22 per cent increase in the

number of commercial mediations

from 338 in 2001/2002 to 411 in

2002/2003. A total of 516 cases were

mediated in 2002/2003, including 105

scheme-based cases.

The significant decisions made by the

courts over the past year, along with

the growing awareness of the benefits

of mediation, have prompted parties

to enter the mediation process under

their own initiative or through court-

annexed schemes (see below).

This culture change has resulted in

mediation being increasingly viewed

as part of the mainstream of effective

dispute resolution.

Scheme cases also increase

In addition to the 22 per cent increase in

commercial mediation case numbers, the

number of scheme-based mediations has

risen by 62 per cent to 105 from 65 the

previous year. These include cases from

the Central London and Birmingham City

County Courts (which together show a

148 per cent increase) as well as the

Financial Services Authority, the Privy

Council, the National Council for

Voluntary Organisations, Age Concern and

the Independent Housing Ombusdman.

CEDR Solve has also provided other

effective dispute resolution processes

for 20 additional cases, comprising

adjudications, early neutral evaluations

and eight independent interventions/

facilitations of complex cases. Significant

cases include the Kenyan tribespeople’s

claim against the MoD and the Alder Hey

retained organs litigation.

Case values

The 22 per cent growth in mediation

cases was largely seen in the middle

case value range (£50k - £1m.). The

number of mediations of matters in

excess of £1million remained static

on the previous year.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Sale

/su

pply

of

goods

Clinic

al negligence/

pers

onal in

jury

Fin

ance

Pro

fess

ional

negligence

Const

ructi

on a

nd

engin

eeri

ng

Pro

pert

y

Em

plo

ym

ent

Part

ners

hip

IT/

tele

com

munic

ati

ons

Inte

llectu

al

pro

pert

y

Insu

rance

Mari

tim

e

Oth

er

Dispute sector

Perc

enta

ge o

f m

edia

tions

N.B. Sector categorisation has been amended and direct comparison with previous years is therefore difficult.

Headlines fromCEDR Solve statistics

� 516 cases mediated (28 per

cent increase on 2001/2002)

� Voluntary mediation

up by 50 per cent

� Judicially directed mediation

down but court-based

scheme cases increase

� Scheme cases up by

62 per cent.

Dispute sectors


Commuting to Slovakia had

never featured highly on my list

of personal aspirations, but

when the chance came for CEDR

Solve to deliver a 15-month

programme advising the Slovak

Government on the introduction

of mediation into their legal

system, I was prepared to revise

the list. In 2001, while I was a

director at CEDR, we tendered

for and won a DFID-financed

contract to do just that; to

establish mechanisms in Slovakia

which permit equitable access

to justice for all parts of the

population, a key part of their

accession to Europe programme.

Three CEDR Solve consultants were

involved - myself, Roger Tabakin and

Lawrence Kershen, with Lisa Watson as

project manager. Work began in

February 2002 and focused on a number

of key areas - creating new legislation,

explaining mediation to an initially non-

plussed audience of lawyers, business-

people, judges and others, building

understanding and capacity within the

Ministry of Justice, and establishing a

body to advise on the development of

mediation in Slovakia in the future.

There is a predictability to the sceptical

response to mediation of lawyers

throughout the world! Slovakia was

no different. We were initially met by

a formal position paper from the Bar

Association, rejecting the relevance

and value of mediation to the Slovak

legal system. By the end of the project,

however, they had representation on the

Ministry of Justice’s working group

on mediation, had made a valuable

contribution to the draft legislation,

and were engaging in mediator training.

Similarly, judges are the crucial link

between the judicial system and any

parallel non-court dispute resolution

system. Their understanding of the process,

and their willingness at least to encourage

parties to attempt mediation, is essential,

and they also engaged in our training.

It may be tempting to think that this

kind of work is simply about ‘exporting’

a settled system. It is not. To operate

effectively, dispute resolution systems

need to be an expression of the way

conflict is viewed in the culture in

question. Part of the challenge of

designing mediation systems for other

countries is to take the fundamentals

of mediation (and only those) and offer

them up for integration into the local

culture and ways.

The challenge, of course, is in deciding

what is fundamental to mediation, and

thus needs to be retained anywhere, and

IntroducingmediationintoSlovakia

what is not. We need to recognise that it

will be a mark of success if mediation is

done differently in different countries.

I am confident that we have built a solid

foundation for the growth of mediation

in Slovakia. Legislation will be on the

statute books within a year, and this in

itself will lend both credibility and

publicity to the process.

There is a trained and growing body

of mediators, assuming full (and

impressively self-initiated) responsibility

for setting training and practice

standards and ethical guidelines.

Pilot schemes are to be conducted in three

main cities, in the east, centre and west

of the country. The Government is now

publicly committed to the introduction of

mediation into the legal system.

Most significant of all, and the real

guarantor of success, is that hearts as

well as minds have been touched by the

reality of what can be achieved when

parties to conflict re-take control and

responsibility for their own solutions.

An E.U. funded programme will now

continue the work.

Bill Marsh

Bill Marsh is a CEDR Solve mediator

and was a Director of CEDR from its

inception until February 2002. He

is now the Founder and Director of

Conflict Management International,

a dispute resolution consulting firm

advising governments and businesses

on their use and development of

dispute resolution systems.

Karl Mackie, CEDR Chief Executive

“Bill Marsh’s work for CEDR Solve in Slovakia and Russia has been a fitting

‘transition’ project as Bill takes his significant experience of EDR development and

rich contributions to CEDR into a new phase of work as an international consultant

and self-employed mediator. We wish him well in this new phase of his career and

expect to be continuing to work closely with him on other projects, training and

mediation appointments.”


As individual members of the

public want to be thought of

as customers and clients, and

communities demand a greater

involvement in the design and

delivery of public services, a

central role of managers in the

public sector is dealing with

customer expectations: a role

which they share with managers

in business.

However, one important difference is

that public sector managers have to

produce social outcomes as well as

financial ones. This role, in addition

to implementing and protecting policy,

inevitably gives rise to competing

resources and expectations, and with

it the potential for using the valuable

capabilities of mediation in such settings.

Most experience of mediation involving

public authorities in civil litigation has

been in contractual and tortious areas

such as clinical negligence, personal

injury, construction, property, and

outsourcing disputes such as the

delivery and installation of IT systems.

The use of mediation, however, is

not restricted to disputes anticipating

litigation. In the local authority

environment, for example, managers

may come across any number of

different types of conflict: serious

employee grievances, service closure

disputes, disputes within and between

communities, potential Ombudsman

cases, planning enforcement cases and

service disputes are just a few. Whilst

On 14 May 2003 the High Court made a further key decision in relation

to the use of ADR, this time with particular reference to the Lord

Chancellor’s ADR pledge (March 2001).

The case of Royal Bank of Canada Trust Corporation Ltd v Secretary of

State for Defence (2003), centred on a point of law concerning the

interpretation of a break clause in a lease. The claimant had expressed its

willingness to resolve the matter by ADR referring specifically to the courts’

recent decisions in relation to the use of mediation. However the

suggestion of mediation was rejected by the government department, on

the basis that;

� the dispute was on a point of law - requiring a ‘black and white’ answer

� the dispute was between commercial parties, not involving individuals

� unlike earlier leading cases on ADR / costs the matter was not one

where emotions were running high, or played a significant part in the

‘conflict’ between the parties.

The dispute was heard in the Chancery Division of the High Court and,

on the point of law, the government department was successful. However

in relation to costs, the claimant drew the court’s attention to the

Government’s ADR pledge which states clearly that “ADR will be considered

and used in all suitable cases wherever the other party accepts it”.

Through the allocation of costs, the judge, Mr Justice Lewison severely

penalised the department for refusing to mediate. He noted the reasons

for refusal as “surprising” and stated that they did not make the matter

unsuitable for mediation. The judge declined to award any costs to the

department, effectively removing much of the financial gain obtained

through the successful action.

This decision follows in a direct line from Dunnett v Railtrack, Hurst v

Leeming and Leicester Circuits v Coates Industries, providing further

examples of failed arguments to avoid mediation.

More specifically, the case makes it clear that it is dangerous for a

government party to ignore its own public undertaking to use ADR.

Further details of the case can be found in the EDR Law section of the

CEDR website at www.cedr.co.uk, together with an article by claimant law

firm Nabarro Nathanson.

Adding valueto public sectconflict mana

Court penalisesMoD for ignoringgovernment pledge


House of Lordsreveals substantialincrease in publicsector mediation

In a House of Lords question on

13 February 2003, Lord Hurd of

Westwell, CEDR Chairman, asked

the Government, “What progress

has been made on the referral of

government disputes to mediation

or arbitration since the report of

the Lord Chancellor’s Department

in July 2002?”

In response, Baroness Scotland

of Asthal, The Parliamentary

Secretary, Lord Chancellor’s

Department, declared that

255 cases have been referred to

alternative dispute resolution by

government departments in this

financial year compared to only

49 cases in 2001/2002. She went

on to note that “progress on this

scale clearly demonstrates that

the pledge marks a major step

on the road away from a culture

of litigation towards a culture

of settlement.”

Baroness Scotland confirmed

“we are doing everything within

our power to make sure that the

benefits of mediation are properly

highlighted.” The Baroness went

on to mention the two-day CEDR

Solve mediation which settled the

dispute between the Ministry of

Defence and Kenyan tribespeople

as an example of recent successes.

The second full report on the

impact of the government’s ADR

pledge, which is expected to be

issued at the start of the Summer

2003, will be posted on the CEDR

website at www.cedr.co.uk as

soon as it is published.

etoragement

the differing dynamics of these conflicts

may not lend themselves to a single

‘mediation model’, careful process

design can maximise the benefits of the

process itself and the outcomes that it

can offer.

Recognising that the use of mediation in

the public sector is still fragmented and

that mediation and associated conflict

management techniques are yet to be

fully realised, CEDR has undertaken a

number of activities:

� CEDR has produced an ADR

guide for public authorities,

complementing the Office of

Government Commerce Dispute

Resolution Guidance which CEDR

helped draft. The main purpose of

the guide is to provide a general

introduction to ADR for those

working in, or associated with,

public authorities and to give

managers and administrators a

practical understanding of the

mediation process.

� In November 2002 CEDR joined

with SOLACE Enterprises, the

commercial arm of the Society of

Local Authority Chief Executives

and Senior Managers, to promote

greater use of alternative dispute

resolution techniques in local

government. Under the initiative,

CEDR and SOLACE Enterprises will

be working together to develop and

provide a mediation service for local

authorities to be run by CEDR Solve.

� CEDR has, to date, been involved

with 16 out of 22 Departments

of State in work dealing with

policy making, contract drafting,

the administration of schemes

and consultation on and delivery

of training courses, including

specific mediation training

courses for the Treasury Solicitor,

the government’s main litigation

department. CEDR will continue

to build relationships and assist

government departments in its

overarching initiative to promote

the government pledge.

� CEDR Solve has a solid portfolio

of mediation schemes reflecting

the use of mediation within

employment, education,

voluntary sector relations, the

government Compact,

ombudsman and regulatory

contexts. Schemes have proven

to be not only an effective way

to design dispute resolution

processes but are also important

in establishing practical

experience in mediation

and providing a

source of

feedback on its

use and future

development.

� CEDR will also

be establishing a

public sector advisory

forum, chaired by Presiley

Baxendale QC, Joint Head

of Blackstone Chambers,

to act as a touchstone for

our work in the public

sector and to sponsor

practical projects.


casestudy

This dispute was primarily

concerned with the liability of a

property valuer in relation to a

pair of valuations on the same

property, a partially completed

development site.

When the property was first offered

for sale, the valuer advised the then

owner that an optimistic sale price

would be in the region of £2.5m.

However, when approached by A and

B some time later, the same valuer

gave a valuation of over £4m. It

subsequently emerged that the valuer

knew that the vendor needed to realise

a sale price of £4m in order to cover

financing on the property.

Acting on the valuer’s advice,

X Limited, a company controlled by

A and B, subsequently acquired the

property for £4m. Subsequently,

however, X Limited encountered

trading difficulties, was unable to

complete the development, and

ultimately ceased trading, owing

substantial debts, the majority of

which were personally guaranteed

by A and B, thus forcing them into

personal bankruptcy.

The subsequent litigation was

complex and involved a number of

issues, in particular as to whether

the valuer had a conflict of interest.

There were also evidential

disagreements and issues concerning

whether A and B were personally

entitled to rely upon the valuation

provided to X Limited. These issues

were tested in the courts over a

period of time, and a large proportion

of the original claim was struck out

by the appeal court. However, by

the time the parties finally considered

mediation, the amount in dispute was

still £7.5m, a third of the original

claim, and costs were very high.

After the parties approached CEDR

Solve for assistance, a two-day

mediation was scheduled under the

auspices of an experienced mediator

carefully selected to match the

particular personalities and dynamics

of the case.

At the mediation, A and B were

represented by their solicitors.

Also present was their bankruptcy

supervisor and his legal adviser;

whilst the defendant valuers were

represented through their insurers and

legal advisers.

Professional negligence - the insurer’s role

Initially parties at the mediation

continued to argue the legal merits of

their respective cases, but ultimately

the mediator encouraged them to focus

on the commercial aspects. One way

of doing this was by bringing together

combinations of representatives to

discuss different issues in parallel.

A key dynamic of the process was the

involvement of the defendants’

insurers’ claims manager who was

encouraged to conduct a thorough risk

analysis and subsequently to discuss a

realistic settlement figure.

Towards the end of the second day of

mediation, this focus on the

commercial issues, including the risks

of continuing litigation, brought the

parties closer together, and ultimately

a cost inclusive settlement of £2.5m

was achieved.

A key dynamic of

the process was the

involvement of the

defendants’ insurers’

claims manager who

was encouraged to

conduct a thorough

risk analysis and

subsequently to

discuss a realistic

settlement figure.


Solicitors have had to convey

several good news/bad news

reports back to insurer clients

from the Court of Appeal in the

last 12 months. In Dunnett v

Railtrack, Neal v Jones Motors

and Leicester Circuits v Coates

Industries the good news was

that they had won on the merits.

The bad news was that they had

not been awarded all their costs

because they had declined to

mediate, apparently in each

case on their client’s instructions.

Hurst v Leeming makes it clear that

it is not enough to refuse to mediate

just because a party thinks it has an

unanswerable case (as in Dunnett),

nor that heavy costs have already been

incurred. It should be required reading

for all senior claims staff handling

claims approaching trial (see the EDR

Law section at www.cedr.co.uk).

It is vital that insurers check with their

solicitors whether they are safe from

risk over costs sanctions in relation to

mediation and, if comfort is needed,

mediation does not necessarily mean

compromise. The losing party in

SITA v Watson Wyatt: Maxwell Batley

[Part 20 Defendant] failed to persuade

the court to impose a cost sanction on

a party refusing to mediate for that

very reason.

It is hard to see the down side for

insurers. However, although CEDR

Solve’s statistics show signs of promise,

insurers remain reluctant participants.

Unlike trials, attendance at a mediation

is often left to the panel solicitor.

When they do engage, they often do

so in a half-hearted way which does not

help their cause. Once, as a mediator,

I had the defendant claims manager

telephoned every time we went into

the private session, his disembodied

voice floating out of a speakerphone

in the middle of the table.

If you want a claimant to feel that

they are being taken seriously, the

claims manager should turn up. You

may hear from the claimant for the

first time in a direct and unfiltered

way. How else can you find out if the

claimant has any surprises for you, so

as to adjust your risk analysis on an

informed basis, but leaving you with

the freedom to walk away and consider

a Part 36 offer tomorrow?

Insurers should mediate claims as

early as possible to get the best

possible advantage from cost savings.

More claims will settle sooner, making

any additional investment of time in

the mediation process self-justifying.

If you do not believe that, then enough

experience has already been gained

around the world to justify trying the

proposition out.

A precisely similar set of remarks could

be and has been made to claimants

lawyers or organisations. CEDR Solve

has delivered training to many claimant

law firms and to the Legal Services

Commission as well as insurers and

their advisers. Wise practitioners will

get trained and equipped to deal with

the mediation revolution well before

any regime is imposed upon them by

rules or judgments of the courts or

by Parliament.

A full version of Tony Allen’s article

is available on CEDR’s website at

www.cedr.co.uk.

Insurers

by Tony Allen, CEDR Director,

Solicitor and a CEDR Solve mediator

“The dynamic of

discussion within a team

which debates legal issues

against commercial issues

is a vital dimension which

an insurer’s absence will

damage seriously.”

EuropeanParliamentsupportsa model codefor ADR

The European Parliament

has adopted a draft

resolution on the European

Commission’s Green Paper

on alternative dispute

resolution in civil and

commercial law.

The resolution recommends

further consultation on a Europe-

wide model code for ADR

encompassing a number of

procedural guarantees concerning

cross-border disputes, best

practice and access to justice.

In accepting a report by Diana

Wallis MEP, the European

Parliament has recognised that

ADR is a “cheaper, less

confrontational and more

consensual approach than that

afforded by the judicial system,”

and has sent a clear message to

the European Commission that it

wants policy towards ADR to be

focused on further research and

promotion of best practices, with

any legislative activity focused on

simplification of the field rather

than on direct regulation.

A detailed news item including a

copy of the report is available at

www.cedr.co.uk.

take note


Court activism, increased

knowledge of EDR (effective

dispute resolution) and more

particularly greater experience

of the mediation process itself,

has brought about the need for

more sophisticated training in

advanced techniques for lawyers.

In response to this, CEDR Solve is

relaunching its ‘Representing Clients

in Mediation’ (RCiM) series to equip

lawyers with the skills they need to

advise and represent their clients

effectively and with confidence in an

increasingly sophisticated market place.

The redesigned RCiM programme moves

away from the previous two-day course

format - Part One and Part Two - to be

split into three key areas: an introduction

to mediation within the current judicial

landscape; effective preparation of a

mediation; and getting the best out of

Representing clients in mediation

“Effective training gives

you an edge over your

competition. As a

mediation invariably

requires the decision

maker to be present for the

duration of the mediation,

the benefits of this course

become even more acute

as your mediation

expertise is played out

directly in front of both

your client and the other

party’s client.”

A flexible

format -

up to three

days or

individual

half-day

modules.

the mediation itself. The various modules

draw on elements that CEDR Solve has

identified through its client feedback as

being important to the end client.

The RCiM modules also incorporate

the legal implications of recent court

developments, such as pre-action

protocols and cost sanctions, and more

detailed elements of the mediation

process such as preparation, negotiation

and settlement. Each module involves

participative exercises, case studies

and role-play.

The new modular format offers flexibility

in terms of audience and timings, and

firms can determine the content and

sophistication of learning to suit their

own lawyers. Activities and exercises will

be explored using examples from relevant

sectors and where possible, real scenarios

will be used.

By the completion of this programme,

participants will be able to:

� Recognise the value of mediation

processes as a legitimate method of

case management

� Identify cases, both pre and mid

proceedings, for which mediation

is appropriate

� Explain the mediation processes to

clients and other legal professionals

� Prepare a case for mediation in a

manner that best represents the

clients’ interests

� Employ strategies while engaged in

mediation that will ensure client

satisfaction.

CEDR Solve is an integral part of CEDR’s

mission to develop and lead the field of

mediation. The redesigned RCiM course

is the latest example of CEDR’s thought

leadership and CEDR Solve’s practice

leadership working together for the

development of both thinking and training.


keydates

Changing the way employment disputes are resolved

As part of a joint initiative to help

shape the way mediation is used

in employment disputes, CEDR

joined forces in May 2003 with

member firm Fox Williams to

hold an employment mediation

ThinkTank with participating

industry and sector leaders.

Joining CEDR’s Karl Mackie, Terry Jones

and Heather Allen and Fox Williams’

Anne Coles and John Greager, were Maria

Burroughs, DTI Employment Relations

Directorate, and Rory Murphy, Joint

General Secretary, UNIFI. Drawing on his

extensive experience of his native New

Zealand, John Greager highlighted the

huge potential that mediation can hold

for employment cases with mediation

forming a mandatory stage prior to the

employment tribunal. In 90 per cent of

cases within the New Zealand system, the

mediation stage settles the grievance.

In the UK, responses to the DTI’s Routes

to Resolution consultation document,

the Employment Tribunal System

Taskforce report and the Better

Regulation Taskforce report all advocate

mediation as an effective tool for the

resolution of employment disputes.

Maria Burroughs is currently heading up

a team to examine how this might best

be incorporated into the existing system.

She commented “it is critical that,

wherever possible, disputes are resolved

before getting to litigation”.

The joint initiative aims to combine the

knowledge and experience of Fox Williams

and CEDR to raise awareness among

employers and their advisers of both the

benefits and positive experiences of

organisations already using the process.

We hope to encourage the introduction

and development of mediation with

employees and Unions to gain their

understanding, trust and buy-in.

Advocating the benefits of mediation,

Rory Murphy of UNIFI stated “mediation

is infinitely preferable to litigation” and

“... should be the golden thread running

though the fabric of an organisation”.

Both CEDR and Fox Williams are looking

to organisations to pilot the use of

mediation for the resolution of employment

disputes and hope to report on progress

and developments at a re-gathering of

the ThinkTank later in the year.

If you, or your organisation, would like

to be involved in the initiative, or you

would like further information on the

development of mediation in employment

cases contact Lisa Watson on +44 (0)20

7536 6000, e-mail [email protected].

CEDR training and events CEDR Solve open programmes

CEDR Solve provides practical training solutions for business people and

professionals engaged in mediation and other forms of dispute resolution.

Most of CEDR Solve’s training is bespoke - delivered in-company, tailored

to meet each organisation’s specific requirements.

Forthcoming open courses include:

For more information,

including course dates for 2004,

please contact CEDR

on +44 (0)20 7536 6000,

e-mail [email protected]

or visit www.cedr.co.uk

For more information,

please contact CEDR Solve

on +44 (0)20 7536 6060,

e-mail [email protected]

or visit www.cedr-solve.com

Representing clients

in mediation

(modules)

� Module one

Mediation principles

17 September 2003

� Module two

Effective preparation

22 September 2003

� Module three

Effective participation

7 October 2003

Advance negotiation skills

19 and 20 November 2003

London

Mediator skills training -

Summer school

24-30 August 2003

Lake Majore, Italy

Mediator skills training -

Workshop

1, 2, 8, 9 and 15 October 2003

London

“The best training course I

have ever been on - excellent!”

Mediator skills participant

“The course was stimulating

and provoked much thought,

after its conclusion, on many

aspects of my professional life.”

Summer school 2002 participant

Advanced mediator

training course

13-20 September 2003

Roccalvecce, Viterbo, Italy

Mediator debrief session

15 July 2003

London

Further communication skills

for mediators

10 September 2003

London

Power and neutrality

in mediation

25 September 2003

London

Law and practice for

non-lawyer mediators

22 October 2003

London

Resolutions - Issue number 32, Summer 2003 www.cedr.co.uk12

CEDR

Exchange Tower

1 Harbour Exchange Square

London E14 9GB

Tel +44 (0)20 7536 6000

Fax +44 (0)20 7536 6001

E-mail [email protected]

www.cedr.co.uk

Editor Lisa Watson

Asst Editor Elizabeth Faulkner © CEDR 2003

keypeopleIn memory of Anthony James Curtis

1937-2003

We are very sad to report the

death of Tony Curtis in March

this year, after a relatively

short but courageous battle

with a brain tumour. Tony has

been a much loved and valued

mediator and trainer, who

contributed greatly to the

development of CEDR.

Having conducted his first mediation

in 1992, Tony rapidly became a highly

skilled and competent mediator.

He was a popular and effective mediator

and an outstanding communicator, who

was unfailingly courteous. He was

regarded as one of the leaders in the

development of the art of facilitative

mediation, and was frequently requested

by parties who had previously benefited

from his fabulous facilitative mediation

skills with parties noting that “his rapport

building and readiness to be innovative

were his greatest strengths”. He was

someone who had a “pleasant and

authoritative personality, with much

patience and tact”.

His professional background as a solicitor

was varied and diverse. In addition to

his role as managing partner of his firm

from 1989 until he retired from private

practice in 1997, he was also involved in

a variety of activities outside private

practice. These included his roles as

Chair of the Legal Aid Tribunal, Chairman

of a housing association, member of a

University Development Board and a

member of a Medical Ethics Advisory

Committee. His experience enabled

him to be knowledgeable and flexible,

and rapidly understand the needs of

disputants coming from different sectors.

Tony’s ease of relating to people was an

ability much admired by all who came

into contact with him.

Tony’s contribution to the training of

mediators was immense. He was a

member of the CEDR Training Faculty

for nine years and regularly led training

courses for mediators and for lawyers

representing clients in mediation.

Training was his particular love. He was

always prepared to experiment and

introduce new ideas and concepts to

enhance mediation skills. Colleagues on

the training faculty are grateful for his

contributions, and will miss his presence

and participation.

A person of many talents, Tony was a

keen private pilot and a gliding instructor.

He also had an interest in music (playing

the oboe), Spanish, theatre, and a love

of travelling and meeting people.

Tony is survived by his wife Jill and their

two sons, Simon and Andrew, their wives

and children. Sadly, he died shortly before

he, Jill and their family could celebrate

their 40th Wedding anniversary. His

courteous presence and delightful sense

of humour will be missed by all of us.

“Tony’s courteous presence

and delightful sense of

humour will be missed by

all of us.”

Kindly written by friend

and colleague Roger Tabakin.

public sector - a culture change? - cedr.com · public sector - a culture change? pages 6 & 7....

Documents