Expanding the scope of dispute resolution and access to justice
This note considers recent civil justice reforms in England and Singapore in enhancing the role of ADR, in particular mediation, as a means of increasing access to justice. The English and Singaporean civil justice reforms reflect the continual efforts to encourage the greater utilisation of ADR for...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2838 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4796/viewcontent/CJQ_Editors_Note_for_ADR_Issue_final_version.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | This note considers recent civil justice reforms in England and Singapore in enhancing the role of ADR, in particular mediation, as a means of increasing access to justice. The English and Singaporean civil justice reforms reflect the continual efforts to encourage the greater utilisation of ADR for appropriate cases. The current range of mechanisms may be charted along a “continuum of madatoriness”, ranging from compulsory attendance at mediation orientation sessions; the utilisation of costs sanctions; having an opt-out system; and mandating mediation with no exemptions. However, the English and Singaporean experiences illustrate some of the drawbacks in penalising parties for failing to mediate. It is, therefore, critical for the courts to clearly articulate the factors guiding the exercise of their powers when mandating mediation as well as adopting a consistent and united judicial stance. |
|---|