Latest News

Comparative Analysis of Mandatory Mediation Programs in England and Wales, Australia, and the European Union

Comparative Analysis of Mandatory Mediation Programs in England and Wales, Australia, and the European Union

Mandatory mediation has gained popularity to settle business and legal conflicts. This study provides a comparative examination of the numerous required mediation programmes that have been piloted and enacted in England and Wales, Australia, and the European Union. The choice to impose or allow mandatory mediation is influenced by several factors, including external ones like membership in regional or international organizations, structural ones like legal tradition, and domestic ones like the length of time it takes for cases to go to trial, the expense of litigation, the prevailing legal culture, and the opinions of the judiciary, legal community, and general public. Mandatory mediation can only be effective with the backing of the legal community and the judges, meaning that any program of this kind will be more successful if it coincides with a change in the culture of conflict resolution that is now in place.

Mandatory mediation is a contentious strategy using a procedure imposed by the court. If specific requirements are not fulfilled or one or more parties decline mediation, it may be categorical and enable parties to opt out. Opt-out programs provide parties with the option to withdraw from mediation if specific requirements are not satisfied or if one or more parties object. Discretionary mediation, also referred to as court-referred mediation, provides courts the authority to send parties to mediation with or without their agreement. Parties to quasi-compulsory schemes are compelled to think about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in general as opposed to mediation in particular.

Significant advancements in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), notably in consumer disputes, have resulted from the European Union's establishment of a unified economic zone and convergence of legal systems. The European Commission (EC) published guidelines in 1998 and 2001 to make ADR procedures easier for consumers to access. The European Commission published recommendations for new ADR and online dispute resolution directives and regulations in 2011. The internal mediation strategies of member states are influenced by EU membership as well. The former jurisdiction's implementation of Article 6 of the ECHR is one of the main distinctions between Australia and England. The 2002 mediation "Green Paper" makes the case that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) can increase access to justice, but it also cautions states against requiring mediation.

Directive 2008/52/EC on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters was approved by the European Commission (EC) and applies solely to cross-border civil and commercial disputes. The Directive's ultimate implementation date is May 21, 2011, and it applies to all EU members except Denmark. The Directive leaves room for states to apply the requirements to local issues while allowing member states to apply them to internal mediation processes. Except for Article 10 of the Directive, which mandated compliance by November 21, 2010, the EC recognizes the legitimacy of obligatory mediation schemes. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is in favour of mandatory extrajudicial procedures provided they don't lead to a legally binding ruling, significantly postpone the litigation process, remove the court's jurisdiction because of the statute of limitations, or incur undue expenses.

The Mandatory Mediation Directive of the European Commission has been criticized for its narrow scope of applicability across borders, weaknesses in confidentiality clauses, and emphasis on improving the quality of mediation rather than expanding its use. Italy lacks mediation in cross-border legal disputes because national legislation goes beyond what is required under the Directive. Italy was awarded in two instances by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice in 2003. Italy claimed that by not bringing its claims before a court promptly, it had violated Article 6(1) of the ECHR. A new opt-in mediation method for corporate problems was created by legislation in 2003. This procedure requires a stay of proceedings during the mediation and exempts settlements from stamp duty. With just 22% of cases assigned to mediation having a scheduled mediation appointment and 81% of cases opposing the matter being mediated, the preliminary findings were by no means encouraging. The Halsey ruling and the obstinacy of the legal community are to blame for the ARM pilot program's demise.

To meet the EU Directive for cross-border disputes, England passed laws in 2011 that included quasi-compulsory alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Nonetheless, the judiciary's opposition to obligatory mediation is clear from the prohibition on courts' discretionary referrals to mediation. Australia, which has had many successful mandated mediation programs since 1980, has had a different experience with these programs. These are legislative programs that fall under a certain category, such as the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000 in Queensland and the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 in New South Wales. Federal law requires mediation in family law cases, and judges have the right to impose mediation without the parties' agreement.

All cases have been sent to mediation by the Supreme Court of Victoria unless there is a valid basis to the contrary. Certain countries have attempted to mitigate apprehensions by enforcing regulations on the conduct of parties during mediation. For instance, section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) mandates that parties engage in court-referred mediation in a spirit of 'good faith'. This norm, nevertheless, has come under fire for being imprecise and unsuitable for the mediation setting. Judges in England have imposed adverse cost orders on parties who have 'unreasonably' declined to engage in mediation. Mandatory mediation can be employed as a short-term fix to promote the broader use of mediation in general, especially in the case of categorical and quasi-compulsory schemes. Policies that require mediation should not be seen as a permanent fix; on the contrary, they may benefit parties involved in disputes, the legal community, and the courts in the long run by raising knowledge of mediation procedures.

  • Australia's mandatory mediation programs are more successful than those in England and the EU due to differing legal and cultural support.
  • Effective mandatory mediation depends on supportive legal traditions and a cultural shift towards ADR.
  • EU mediation directives face criticism for limited scope and focus on quality over broader adoption.

BY : Vaishnavi Rastogi

All Latest News