I have a dispute, what do I do? Do I join the FTSE 100 companies and help maintain an increase of 16% in court appearances ? http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1740382/research-rise-court-appearances-ftse-100-companies or Do I heed the warning sent out by the case of BSkyB v EDS ? http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3185.asp or Do I look more carefully at the options, and as Jonathan Djanogly MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice suggests, consider the court as the last resort, rather than the first ? http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement200910a.htm I will attempt to help in answering, by paraphrasing and commenting on the above articles: • In relation to the FTSE 100 comment, Sweet & Maxwell, the legal information provider, showed in a study that "during the year to 30 June 2010 there were 179 cases involving FTSE 100 companies across the Court of Appeal, Queen's Bench and Chancery Division, compared to 154 in the previous year." " This rise [in court appearances by the FTSE 100] suggests that the inevitable flood of litigation following the economic downturn has yet to peak." The total number could of course rise as claimants have six years to launch a claim. However, the research adds that: "Cases that actually turn into High Court appearances are only the tip of the iceberg of commercial disputes. The majority of commercial disputes are now settled outside the courts through alternative dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration." • As far as the BSkyB v EDS case is concerned you may feel that the "litigation risk" is too great, on the other hand you may feel that your preparation for the case has ensured that "rogue" evidence is unlikely to be given, BUT, that extensive preparation will have taken a great deal of time for you and your employees which equals a great deal of cost to your company. Litigation is not always doom and gloom and there are many other "safety" measures suggested in the article, but there is always a litigation risk. Finally, remember that settlement, whether by alternative dispute resolution or more traditional without prejudice negotiations, is not a dirty word. It is often far better to negotiate a settlement that all parties are reasonably happy with than to hold out for your 'day in court', with its associated risks. • What Jonathan Djanogly MP has to say has already been referred to in the two preceding paragraphs. Having had the opportunity to visit courts, advice centres and many of the other bodies and organisations that make up our civil justice system, he comments that "what I am hearing is that both the public and the dedicated professionals working in the system want reform. They want a system that is fairer, faster and less costly". He poses the question "how will we bring about change?" and comments that we must ask some fundamental questions about the way we, as a society, use our civil justice system and the role each of us plays in taking responsibility to resolve our own problems where possible. "This is where other dispute resolution options other than court have an important, possibly revolutionary role to play. All too often court has been seen as the first, rather than the last, resort for dealing with disputes -whether it is a contractual disagreement between two companies or neighbours with a boundary dispute." The answer, and final quote from Jonathan Djongoly MP - "Our evidence shows that mediation can be quicker, cheaper and provide better outcomes than going to court." Peter Whitman 18.10.10.
I’ve been in legal administration for over 35 years – I know how things work, and appreciate the benefits of mediation as an essential tool to consider when in dispute. I can discuss its benefits to…
Post articles and opinions on Manchester Professionals
to attract new clients and referrals. Feature in newsletters.
Join for free today and upload your articles for new contacts to read and enquire further.
