CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM AND ADR ARE INTERTWINED.

CIVIL JUSTICE REFORMERS

FROM LORD WOOLF ONWARDS HAVE PRESSED THE CASE FOR BRINGING ADR
WITHIN THE FORMAL FRAMEWORK OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.’ DISCUSS THIS STATEMENT
WITH REFERENCE TO THE WOOLF REFORMS AND MORE RECENT PROPOSED
REFORMS OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM

ADR is a "umbrella term" that refers to a variety of techniques, including arbitration, negotiation,
reconciliation, and mediation, to encourage out-of-court settlements, wherein agreements and
the conclusions that follow are reached secretively and out of sight of the public. Since the
1990s, the government has sponsored and promoted ADR, placing special emphasis on the use
of mediation because it appeared to be a quick and inexpensive way to resolve interpersonal
conflicts. The use of ADR is actually a result of several reforms that reformers like Lord Woolf
have proposed, as will be covered in more depth below.

Its ambit is broad and includes tort law, family law, administrative law, and contract law. In order
to sustain the conventional principles of rule of law, Bentham presents CJS as a state-provided
approach that uses public adjudications to settle conflicts between individuals and corporations
in an orderly and peaceful manner while also assuring improved accountability.

There have been attempts to give citizens access to a CJS that is efficient, fair, and cheap for
everyone, but these efforts to improve the CJS have been difficult [Genn] and frequently failed
since legal aid is not a common-law or constitutional right in the UK (R(Daly)). The concept of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been promoted in an effort to make up for the lost
assistance that citizens had previously received through legal aid following the introduction of
LASPO 2012, which removed legal aid from the majority of civil cases as a result of litigation
costs skyrocketing to $2 billion.

According to the WJP rule of index expenses, excessive delays and complication have long
been issues with civil judicial systems, not just in England but across the globe. As authorities
struggle to meet the bare minimal norms of accessibility and affordability, prices [such as costs
of paying fees to legal counsel] are primarily what cause impediments to access to justice.

In the 20th century, focus switched to developing solutions and reforms to speed up and reduce
the cost of civil litigation for litigants. Lord Woolf's much-needed extensive examination of civil
justice entitled "Access to Justice" shone attention on systemic problems like rising prices and
declining accessibility and resulted in important improvements.

He first released an interim report in which he outlined the issues with the CJS and suggested
fixes. Second, he provided the Final Report and New Civil Procedure Rules that were both
attached. In his reports, he noted how the main problems of expenses, complications, and
unjustified delays were all connected and were brought on by the litigators' combative approach.
He claimed that these plans and tactics compromised the fundamental purposes and
justification for the existence of procedural regulations while adding needless costs.
Lord Woolf proposed a change in accountability as the answer. He advised moving less
complicated cases to the procedural track so they could be handled swiftly and assigning more
difficult processes to more expensive and legally complex situations. Lord Woolf also underlined
the importance of early case settlement as a means of resolving conflicts as quickly as feasible.
He thought that using the court system should be a last choice and that ADR procedures should
be used instead.

The first issue he identified with the current system is that it is too unequal: There is not enough
parity between the affluent and powerful litigant and the litigant with little resources.
2]expensive: The costs frequently exceed the claim's value; 3]too uncertain: the difficulty of
estimating the expense of litigation and the length of its duration fosters fear of the unknown;
4]slow to reach decisions in cases; 5]too complex: Many plaintiffs may find it challenging to
understand the law and procedure; Its organisational structure is excessively disjointed: No one
has a clear overall responsibility for the administration of civil justice; Too adversarial: Parties
manage cases, not the courts. Too frequently, both the parties and the court fail to follow the
rules of court.

The adjustments he then emphasised were as follows:

In an effort to change the current system, which applies the same procedure to all cases
regardless of significant differences, he asserted that courts should be given the duty of
managing cases, including choosing the appropriate procedures for each case along with
workable timetables and schedules that must be followed. Such a case management system
would promote early case settlement by proposals made by both parties, hence lowering
expenses because ADR would be given top priority. He continued by saying that rather than
having two separate sets of regulations, the high court and county courts will now have a
merged set. This means that there will only be one way to begin any case, allowing it to be
handled fairly. Lord Woolf also highlighted that a senior judge who would be appointed to lead
the system will elevate the status of civil justice and improve the system's use of its resources.

A new procedural code that was to be put into effect by the county and high courts by April 1999
was released after the final report. Latin phrases were not allowed because the guidelines'
major goal was that they should be understandable and accessible to everyone. The practise
directions that came after the further division of the rules into manageable chunks explained
what the courts expected of the parties and what would happen if the established norms weren't
followed.

The three procedural tracks for cases are as follows: the small claims track (CPR Part 27), an
informal but efficient procedure for claims up to £10,000. The second was the fast track, which
involved cases with a claim value of between £10,000 and £25,000 and adhered to a rigorous
deadline (CPR Part 28). For all other circumstances that didn't fall under the aforementioned
categories, there was also the multi-track (CPR Part 29).
These are the most difficult and expensive cases. The court actively manages their cases and
conducts pre-trial reviews of them.
Since the new civil procedural rules were established in April 1999, the quantity and categories
of claims have decreased, demonstrating the efficacy of the changes. Following that, there was
a 25% fall in the number of cases granted in county courts between May and August 1999. By
the end of January 2000, there had been a further decrease of 23%. Pre-action protocols
appear to be effective at encouraging settlement and a spirit of cooperation and openness,
according to the available data. Evidence also suggests that settlements made prior to the
hearing day have grown and that settlements made at the court's door have decreased over
time.

Even while it has been hailed as a success, pre action measures have not always yielded
favourable outcomes, and parties are often pushed into settlements when the matter first arises.
Additionally, when companies don't adhere to the timeline, it throws off the procedural lines and
leads to the imposition of unfair punishments on attorneys, which negatively affects clients.
Evidence also implies that case management contributes to the issue of front loading because
more work is required early on, increasing costs and the hours that lawyers must work.

After 15 years, it may be said that the Woolf reforms have had some success in advancing the
concepts of mutual understanding, settlements, and getting rid of unnecessary delays.
However, the impact it has on expenses is a significant failure. By 2008, litigation expenses had
gotten so high that Lord Clarke, the Master of the Rolls at the time, asked Lord Justice Jackson,
a judge on the Court of Appeal, to conduct a thorough examination of litigation expenses.

According to the Jackson Costs Review, the Woolf Reforms were to blame for the 2010 litigation
cost explosion because they included more labour and stages including pre-action protocols,
which also increased procedural complexity. In plain English, it stated that costs would increase
in direct proportion to the amount of effort that the rules required. The amount of work that
lawyers had to do during the early stages of case preparation had increased, which resulted in a
"front-loading" of legal fees. The aforementioned information makes it very evident that Lord
Woolf's measures regarding the cost issue were a failure.

As a result of these limitations on justice, ADR, an umbrella word, was created. In order to
facilitate out of court settlements, wherein settlements and the conclusions that follow are
carried out in private and away from the public view, such a method makes use of several
procedures like arbitration, negotiation, reconciliation, and mediation. One of the most popular
and extensively used methods in the UK is mediation, in which a third party assists in reaching a
resolution but does so in a way that is not strictly binding, leading to a decision that is made
willingly and of free will.

According to the studies by Kritzer, Lord Woolf's tenacity and display of judicial support in his
final report that mediation would not only save the courts resources but also be more affordable
for litigants and produce quick results was what led to a decrease in the use of trials while
simultaneously increasing the use of ADR. Judges are mandated by Lord Woolf to promote and
stress the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over judicial procedures between parties.
This strategy can be seen in numerous cases, including Cowl v. Plymouth, where it was
mandated to consider ADR prior to the start of legal proceedings, and PGF II SA v. OMFS
Company, where silence in response to conducting an ADR procedure was deemed
unreasonable and labelled as a factor that would result in a costs sanction. However, this
judgement was overturned in the case of Gore v. Naheed because a party's personal
preference to have their matter adjudicated in court rather than through ADR is not irrational in
any situation, particularly when it might be specifically explained.
In addition, Lord Justice Jackson said in Thakkar v. Patel that where mediation results in a
reasonable and advantageous outcome after all attempts at discussion have failed, the parties
would be at fault for extending the process and would be subject to financial penalties. As a
result, mediation was extensively encouraged but not made required by common law.

Due to the parties' conflicting interests and power dynamics, mediation runs the danger of not
producing a resolution. It is insufficient when it is based on a legal precept without having one.
when it comes to procedural formality, such as observing basic due to not producing outcomes
as a result of being correct, arbitration can show to be binding in some circumstances.
Nevertheless, mediation has been deemed to be an equally effective technique to Rank justice
according to its effectiveness as a means of achieving justice by the both the judicial system
and the government.

In light of the reasons and data presented above, ADR has achieved the goal of CJS by
addressing its three key problems—price, delays, and complexity—and coming to a satisfactory
resolution. This does not lessen the significance of courts, and numerous requirements should
be made necessary, such as a system of checks and balances on ADR to make it even more
ROL compliant and impartial, a means of allocating cases to courts and ADR through the
parliament.

As can be seen clearly in the case of Thakkar v. Patel, where LJ Jackson himself advocated the
use of mediation as it would be advantageous to both the litigants and courts as is discussed in
the answer below, courts have openly promoted ADR since they were able to recognise that it
balances the demands of justice while being efficient. Parties are not immediately in danger of
missing out on benefits that the courts permit because significant legal systems, including those
of Canada and Australia, have also embraced this strategy.