The Halsey Case - 2004

The Halsey and Steel case of 2004 has made two interesting point on ADR within the English & Welsh legal system:

The judgement in the these cases establishes two important principles:

1. compulsion of ADR would be regarded as an unacceptable constraint on the right of access to the court and, therefore, a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2. that the court can decide to deprive successful parties of some or all of their costs on the grounds that they have refused to agree to ADR, but that it must be borne in mind that such an order is an exception to the general rule that costs should follow the event. The burden to justify a departure from the general rule is on the unsuccessful party to show that the successful party acted unreasonably in refusing to agree to ADR

Whilst this issue should never have come down to the human rights level via Lord Justice Dyson, on the premis that my research and intellectual challenges to Government have been known about since 1997, ie that misrepresentation that ADR "within" the court structure is "actually" Access TO Justice, when it is obvious it is the opposite "Access FROM Justice", this case is a development that I was previously unaware of.

Well done Lord Justice Dyson.

Brief Synopsis of The Halsey Case as referred to on the Scottish Mediation Network website

Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576