| SPOTLIGHT |
Local authorities are failing to use mediation in judicial reviews despite its potential to deliver substantial cost savings, according to a new report.
The study – The Effective Use of Mediation in Judicial Review – was carried out by law firm Nabarro, barristers’ chambers 39 Essex Street and the ADR Group. It claimed that “few [local government] lawyers appreciate how, and when mediation can be used in such cases to save or reduce legal bills, valuable management time and resolve differences with other parties”.
The report found that some 97% of the local authorities surveyed do not refer judicial reviews to mediation before court proceedings.
However, even though only 3% of the local authorities questioned chose to mediate straight away, the majority (86%) acknowledged mediation as a viable alternative to court proceedings and more than half (56%) said mediation is their preferred method of dispute resolution.
Nabarro partner Gerard Khoshnaw said: “In some judicial review cases mediation may not be appropriate, but there is a large number of disputes where it could be used; for example, where there is the existence of a continuing relationship between the local authority and the other party or where confidentiality or speed are particularly important.”
The survey found that after court proceedings had started, only one in ten cases were then referred to mediation.
The report’s recommendations include that: claimants and defendants give greater attention to the Pre-Action Protocol and case law; the Legal Services Commission more actively encourages publicly-funded claimants to engage in the process; and the courts impose cost penalties.
Frances Woodhead, head of legal at Sheffield City Council, said: “I am convinced that mediation can be a useful process as part of resolving such cases and welcome the debate on this in the hope that more use will be made of mediation to achieve a good outcome.”
Michael Meeson, chambers director of 39 Essex Street, added that there was a “great opportunity” for local authorities to generate cost savings through adopting a more progressive approach in judicial review cases.
