No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
In England and Wales, the issue of mediator immunity has not been considered by the courts or via legislation. Mediator immunity is constructed by analogy to that given to judges, but the role of the judiciary is different to that of mediators, who do not determine cases and, it is argued, do not require protection from litigation because the parties are responsible for the final settlement outcome. In Australia and the USA, mediators are usually provided with immunity in mandatory, ‘court-annexed’ programmes, although this varies from an absolute to a qualified level that is constrained by bad faith or dishonesty. In the English jurisdiction, mediation is court-connected and parties are dissuaded from accessing the courts through the risk of costs penalties or automatic referral schemes. Therefore, the time is opportune for a review of many issues involved in mediation development, including immunity. This paper considers the reasoning for extending immunity to mediators, before concluding that the subject should not be determined through legal action until after a comprehensive review of mediation developments and after a consideration of mediator standards and regulation of practice.
1. Alexander, N Global Trends in Mediation (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 22nd edn, 2006) p 1.Google Scholar
2. See eg Carroll, R ‘Mediator immunity in Australia’ (2001) 23 Sydney L Rev 185 Google Scholar; Carroll, R ‘Trends in mediation legislation: “all for one and one for all” or “one at all”?’ (2001–2002) 30 U W Aust'l L Rev 167 Google ScholarPubMed; Chaykin, A ‘The liabilities and immunities of mediators: a hostile environment for model legislation’ (1986–1987) 2 Ohio St J Disp Resol 47 Google Scholar; Esquibel, A ‘The case of the conflicted mediator: an argument for liability and against immunity’ (1999–2000) 31 Rutgers L J 131 Google Scholar; Stulberg, J ‘Mediator immunity’ (1986–1987) 2 Ohio St J Disp Resol 85 Google Scholar; Zhao, Yun and Koo, Akc ‘Revisiting the issue of mediator immunity: the way forward for prospective mediation legislation in Hong Kong’ (2011) Hong Kong L J 677 Google Scholar; Turner, C ‘Mediator immunity stretching the doctrine of absolute quasi-judicial immunity: Wagshal v Foster ’ (1994–1995) 63 Geo Wash L Rev 759.Google Scholar
3. In California, private mediators have been afforded immunity. See Cole, R et al Mediation: Law, Policy and Practice (Westlaw International Database, 2013) (hereinafter, ‘Cole et al’) at s 11.12Google Scholar. The authors cite Goad v Ervin, 2003 WL 22753608 (Cal App 4th Dist 2003), unpublished/non-citable. See also NADRAC (2006) Legislating for Alternative Dispute Resolution: a Guide for Government Public Policy-Makers and Legal Drafters, available at https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/AlternateDisputeResolution/Documents/NADRAC%20Publications/Legislating%20for%20Alternative%20Dispute%20Resolution.PDF (accessed 27 April 2016); NADRAC (2011) Maintaining and Enhancing the Integrity of Adr Processes, available at https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/AlternateDisputeResolution/Documents/NADRAC%20Publications/Maintaining%20and%20enhancing%20the%20integrity%20of%20ADR%20processes%20%20From%20principles%20to%20practice%20through%20people.PDF (accessed 27 April 2016).
4. Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 44.4(i), (ii).
5. J Norris in Bradley v Heslin [2014] EWHC 3267 recommends that judges should issue a two-month stay in neighbour and boundary disputes even if both parties disagree about mediating (para 23); available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/civil_court_mediation_service_manual_v3_mar09.pdf (accessed 23 June 2015). See Allen, T ‘Requiring mediation in intractable cases: a note on Bradley v Heslin’ CEDR Article, available at http://www.cedr.com/articles/?item=Requiring-mediation-in-intractable-cases-a-note-on-Bradley-v-Heslin (accessed 2 March 2015)Google Scholar. Sir Alan Ward in Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 234 at 3; Lord Justice Clarke ‘the future of civil mediation’ (2008) 74(4) Arbitration 419. See Brooker, P ‘Mediating in good faith in the English and Welsh jurisdiction: lessons from other common law countries’ (2014) 43 Comm L Rev 120 at 151Google Scholar.
6. CPR 26(4)A(2)(b). Small claims (less than £10,000) can be referred by the court to the Small Claim Mediation Service (Scms) if the parties have not refused to use the facility; see https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/civil_court_mediation_service_manual_v3_mar09.pdf (accessed 17 July 2015). The Scms is managed by Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service (Hmcts); see http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26 (accessed 27 April 2016). The Court of Appeal Mediation Scheme is organised by the Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR); see https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rcj-rolls-building/court-of-appeal/civil-division/mediation (accessed 17 July 2015).
7. See the Technology and Construction Court Guide (22nd edn, 3rd rev, 2014). Litigants in the TCC may ask the judge to act as an Early Neutral Evaluator, which may be through mediation (7.6.1).Google Scholar
8. See eg NADRAC (2006), above n 3, ss 42–44.
9. See eg K Kovach ‘The evolution of mediation in the United States: issues ripe for regulation may shape the future of practice’, in Alexander, above n 1, pp 429–430.
10. See eg the USA ‘ National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs’ (NSCCMP), which apply to ‘any program or service, including a service provided by an individual, to which a court refers cases on a voluntary or mandatory basis, including any program or service operated by the court’ (NSCCMP, Definitions, iv).
11. See CPR r26.4. See eg Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes 1.3(ii), 2(vi) and 5.2.
12. CPR s44(i), (ii).
13. Brunsdon-Tully, M ‘There is an a in Adr but does anyone know what it means anymore?’ (2009) 28 Civ Just Q 218 at 232; see also Hong Kong Civil Justice Rules (CJR)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the developments in Hong Kong, see eg Weixia, G ‘Civil justice reform in Hong Kong: challenges and opportunities for development of alternative dispute resolution’ (2010) 40(1) Hong Kong L 43 Google Scholar; Cheung, S ‘Construction mediation landscape in the civil justice system in Hong Kong’ (2010) 2(3) J Legal Aff & Disp Resol in Engng & Construct 169 Google Scholar.
14. Holdsworth, Lord Justice ‘Immunity for judicial acts’ (1924) Soc Pub Teachers L 17.Google Scholar
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid, pp 18–19. LJ Holdsworth notes that from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, immunity did not cover judges acting ‘without jurisdiction’.
17. See eg Murphy, J ‘Rethinking tortious immunity for judicial acts’ (2013) 33(3) Legal Stud 455 at 458–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hughes, S ‘Mediator immunity: the misguided and inequitable shifting of risk’ (2004) 83 Or L Rev 107 Google Scholar; Nicol, A ‘Judicial immunity and human rights’ (2006) Eur Hum Rts L Rev 558 Google Scholar; Thompson, D ‘Judicial immunity and the protection of justices’ (1958) 21 Mod L Rev 517 at 517CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18. Murphy, ibid, at 457.
19. LJ Holdsworth, above n 14, at 18–19, citing Coke para 25.
20. Ibid, at 19, citing Coke para 25. For a review of judicial immunity in the common law, see eg Murphy, above n 17, at 455–477; Hughes, above n 17.
21. LJ Holdsworth, above n 14, at 19, citing Coke 1606 12 Co Rep 23 para 25. For a review of judicial immunity in the common law, see eg Murphy, above n 17, at 455–477; Hughes, above n 17; Turner, above n 2.
22. See Hughes, above n 17, at 114.
23. Ibid, at 114; Murphy, above n 17, at 463–464.
24. Judiciary website, available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-in-detail/jud-acc-ind/independence#headingAnchor7 (accessed 27 March 2013).
25. Murphy, above n 17, at 455. See also Esquibel, above n 2, at 172; Nicol, above n 17, at 558.
26. See Murphy, above n 17, at 485; Zhao and Koo, above n 2, at 679–680.
27. Murphy, above n 17, at 458, citing Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118 para 134.
28. Ibid, citing Sirros para 137.
29. Ibid, at 459, citing Lord Steyn in Three Rivers Dc v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] AC 1; see Esquibel, above n 2.
30. See eg Esquibel, above n 2, at 142, 130; Joseph, C ‘The scope of mediator immunity: when mediators can invoke absolute immunity’ (1996-1997) 12 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 629 at 633.Google Scholar
31. Other common law countries have followed this direction. See eg Stipanowich, T ‘The arbitration penumbra: arbitration law and the rapidly changing landscape of dispute resolution’ (2007–2008) 8 Nev L J 427 Google Scholar; Hebaishi, H ‘Should arbitrator immunity be preserved under English Law?’ (2014) 2 NE L Rev 45 Google Scholar; Nolan, D and Abrams, R ‘Arbitral immunity’ (2014) 11 Berkeley J Emp & Lab L Article 2, 228 (reproduced)Google Scholar; Bristow, D and Parke, J ‘Canada – the gathering storm of arbitrators’ and mediators' liability’ (2001) Intern ALR 135 Google Scholar; Lin, Yu-Hong and Shore, L ‘Independence, impartiality, and immunity of arbitrators – Us and English perspectives’ (2003) 52(4) Int'l & Comp L Q 954 Google Scholar; Carroll, R ‘Quasi-judicial immunity: the arbitrator's shield or sword?’ (1991) J Disp Resol 137.Google Scholar
32. Arenson v Arenson [1977] AC 405; Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974] AC 727. See eg Oyre, T ‘Professional liability and judicial immunity’ (1998) 64(1) Arbitration 45 at 46Google Scholar; Mulcahy, C ‘Arbitrator's immunity under the new Arbitration Act’ (2006) 62(3) Arbitration 202; ibid. For a discussion on arbitration in the USA, see Stipanowich, above n 31Google Scholar.
33. Section 29(1) Arbitration Act 1996; Oyre, above n 32, at 49. Oyre notes that the Arbitration Act sought to ‘close loopholes’ by extending immunity to ‘employees or agents of the arbitrator’ under s 29(2) and to ‘Arbitral Institutions’ under s 74.
34. See Hebaishi, above n 31, at 24–25; Oyre, above n 32, at 46; See also Mulcahy, above n 32, at 202. Mulcahy cites Megaw J in Cannock Chase Council v Kelly [1978] 1 WLR 1 para 6D–E.
35. Hebaishi above n 31; arbitral good faith is discussed later when mediators’ good faith is raised. Mulcahy, above n 32, at 204; See also Li, J ‘Arbitral immunity: a profession comes of age’ (1998) 64(1) Arbitration 51.Google Scholar
36. See eg Joseph, above n 30.
37. See Department of Justice, the Government of the Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region Report of the Working Group on Mediation (2010) (hereinafter ‘Hong Kong Report’).
38. Ibid, ch 7.154. See also Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 206.
39. See eg Stulberg, above n 2; NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.
40. See eg Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.156.
41. Ibid, ch 7.154; Brooker, P Mediation Law: Journey through Institutionalisation to Juridification (London: Routledge, 2013) ch 5, p 187 Google Scholar; Toulson, R and Phipps, C On Confidentiality (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)Google Scholar; Koo, A ‘Confidentiality of mediation communications’ (2011) 30(3) Civ Just Q 192 Google Scholar.
42. Bevan, A Alternative Dispute Resolution (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1992) p 19. See eg Kovach, above n 9, p 439; Toulson and Phipps, above n 41, s 15.016: ‘… it would destroy the basis of mediation if, in the case of the mediation failing, either party could publicise matters which had passed between themselves or between either of them and the mediator’.Google Scholar
43. Kovach, above n 42, pp 438–439.
44. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 209; see also Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.152.
45. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 208.
46. Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.162.
47. See Hebaishi, above n 31; Lord Donaldson of Lymington stated that if he had to insure himself as an ‘occasional’ arbitrator. he would ‘cease’ to undertake this role in the future. See Hansard, Official Report of the Committee on the Arbitration Bill [H.L.], HL Deb 28, vol. 569, cc1–30GC 1GC, February 1996 (accessed 13 October 2015).
48. Chaykin, A ‘Mediator liability: a new role for fiduciary studies’ (1984) 53 U Cin L Rev 731 at 762.Google Scholar
49. CEDR Mediation Audit 2014, available at http://www.cedr.com/about_us/modeldocs/ (accessed 25 February 2015) at 10. The Audit reports that there is an ‘over-supply’ of new mediators, who cannot break into a limited market.
50. See eg Hughes, above n 17, at 125; Esquibel, above n 2, at 150; Carroll, above 31, at 146.
51. Hughes, above n 17, at 125.
52. Thompson, N ‘Enforcing rights generated in court-connected mediation--tension between the aspirations of a private facilitative process and the reality of public adversarial justice’ (2004) 19 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 509 at 517.Google Scholar
53. Turner, above n 2, at 765–768, citing Butz v Economou (1978) 438 US 478.
54. See eg Hughes, above n 17; Esquibel, above n 2; Cole et al, above n 3.
55. Esquibel, above n 2, at 149–150 cites the California Court of Appeal in Howard v Drapkin 222 Cal App 3d 843 2nd Dist, 3rd Div (Ct App 1990), which concerned immunity for a psychologist appointed by both parties in a child ‘custody’ dispute.
56. Ibid, Howard v Drapkin ss (d) and (e). See Turner, above n 2, at 853.
57. Wagshal v Foster, 28 F 3d 1249 (DC Cir 1994). The court affirmed that the difference between mediators and evaluators is that mediators help the parties ‘explore settlement’ whereas evaluators assist them to ‘assess their cases’ (at 2). For an analysis of Wagshal v Foster, see eg Hughes, above n 17; Turner, above n 2; Burnley, R and Lascelles, G ‘Mediation confidentiality: conduct and communications’ (2004) 70(1) Arbitration 28 at 31–32Google Scholar; Esquibel, above n 2, at 150; Hughes, above n 17, at 132–141.
58. Ibid, Wagshal v Foster s 2.
59. Wagshal, above n 57, at 4; Turner above n 2, at 772–774.
60. Wagshal, above n 57, at 6.
61. See Turner, above n 2, at 775–783.
62. NADRAC (2006), above n 3, s 8.30.
63. Chaykin, n 48, at 735. See also Turner, above n 2, at 776: Turner bases her analysis of the mediator's role on Chaykin.
64. Turner, above n 2, at 776. It is noted that the case management role for judges involves facilitative tasks such as encouraging mediation, and s 34(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act permits arbitrators to take a ‘inquisitorial role' with the parties’ permission.
65. Turner, above n 2, at 777–778.
66. Ibid.
67. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.
68. Chaykin, above n 48, at 762; see eg Riskin, L ‘Understanding mediators' orientations, strategies and techniques: a grid for the perplexed’ (1996) Harv Negot L Rev 1.Google Scholar
69. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4. See also NADRAC (2006), above n 3, s 8.23; Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.149.
70. See eg Riskin, above n 68. The literature on the evaluative/facilitative divide is extensive in the USA: see eg Kovach, K and Love, P ‘“Evaluative” mediation is an oxymoron’ (1996) 14 Alt High Cost Litig 31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kovach, K and Love, L ‘Mapping mediation: the risks of Riskin's grid’ (1998) 3 Harv Negot L Rev 71 at 109Google Scholar; Stulberg, J ‘Facilitative versus evaluative mediator orientations: piercing the grid’ (1997) 24 Fla St U L Rev 985 Google Scholar. For an overview of the debate and developments in England and Wales, see eg Brooker, P ‘An investigation of evaluative and facilitative approaches to construction mediation’ (2007) 25(3/4) Struct Surv 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Chaykin, above n 48, at 762.
72. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.12, citing Goad v Ervin, 2003 WL 22753608 (Cal App 4th Dist 2003), unpublished/non-citable.
73. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.12, citing Simpson v Jams/Endispute, LLC, No A110634, 2006 WL 2076028 (Cal App 1 Dist 26 July 2006), unpublished/non-citable.
74. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.12, citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v Vedatech Intern., Inc., 245 Fed Appx 588 (9th Cir, 2007).
75. Taphooi v Lewenberg [2003] (No 2) VSC 410 Supreme Court of Victoria, Commercial and Equity Division (21 October 2003) para 86. For an analysis of the case, see eg Zhao and Koo, above n 2; NADRAC (2001), above n 3, s 5.4.
76. Taphooi, above n 75, paras 35, 36.
77. Arenson v Arenson [1977], above n 32.
78. Taphooi, above n 75, para 69. See Zhao and Koo, above n 2.
79. See eg Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 195; Chaykin, above n 2, at 81; Turner, above n 2, at 776.
80. See eg Hong Kong Report, above n 37, para 7.149; Hughes, above n 17; NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.
81. Chaykin, above n 48, at 732.
82. Chaykin, above n 2, at 77.
83. Hughes, above n 17, at 111.
84. Ibid; Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.12.
85. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 205.
86. Ibid, at 211.
87. Ibid, at 195.
88. Carroll (2001–2002), above n 2, at 214.
89. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.11, See also Hughes, above n 17, at 145.
90. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.11, citing the Iowa Code Ann. s 679C.115 (2005): ‘A mediator or a mediation program shall not be liable for civil damages for a statement, decision, or omission made in the process of mediation unless the act or omission by the mediator or mediation program is made in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting willful or wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property.’
91. Ibid, citing Hughes, above n 17, who discusses the presumption of good faith in Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
92. Ibid.
93. Laflin, M ‘Preserving the integrity of mediation through the adoption of ethical rules for lawyer-mediators’ (2000) 14 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 479 fn 149Google Scholar. See also Moffitt, M ‘Ten ways to get sued: guide for mediators’ (2003) 8 Harv Negot L Rev 81 Google Scholar; Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
94. See eg Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
95. Carroll (2001–2002), above n 2, at 188. See also Laflin, above n 93; Cole et al, above n 3.
96. Burnley and Lascelles, above n 57, at 31–32. See also Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
97. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13, citing UMA ss 7(a), 10.
98. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
99. NADRAC (2006), above n 3, s 8.12.
100. Cited by ibid, ss 8.14, 8.17.
101. Ibid, ss 8.30, 8.12.
102. Ibid, s 8.31.
103. Ibid, ss 8.2, 8.4.
104. Ibid, ss 8.5, 8.25.1.
105. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, ss 5.1, 5.5.
106. Ibid, s 5.9.3.
107. Ibid, s 5.5.1.
108. Chaykin, above n 48, at 763.
109. Ibid.
110. Hughes, above n 17, at 155.
111. Ibid, at 145.
112. Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration (DAC) Report on Arbitration Bill (1996). See also Hansard HL Deb, above n 47.
113. See Hebaishi, above n 31, at 24–25, 55; Oyre, above n 32, at 46. See also Mulcahy, above n 32, at 202, citing Megaw J. in Cannock Chase Council v Kelly [1978] 1 WLR 1 para 6D–E.
114. Cole et al, above n 3, s 16.6.
115. Moffitt, M ‘Suing mediators’ (2003) 83 BU L Rev 147 at 195 et seq.Google Scholar
116. Ibid, at 198.
117. Ibid.
118. See above n 3.
119. Hughes, above n 17, at 155–156.
120. Ibid, at 155.
121. Ibid, at 169.
122. Zhao and Koo, above n 2, at 677–678.
123. Mediation Ordinance Cap620 2013; see also Mediation Practice Ordinance, PD 31 pt B9. See eg Weixia above n 13, at 43.
124. Brooker, above n 41, pp 78–81. For a discussion on developments in Hong Kong, see eg ibid; Weixia, above n 13, at 78–81; Cheung, above n 13, at 169; Wall, C ‘Mediation in the civil justice system in Hong Kong’ (2009) 73(3) Arbitration 425 Google Scholar; Wall, C ‘The framework for mediation in Hong Kong’ (2009) 75(1) Arbitration 78–85 Google Scholar; Yu, H ‘The draft Mediation Bill’ (2012) 1 Hong Kong L J 351.Google Scholar
125. Mediation Ordinance Cap620 2013, above n 123; see Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 8, Recommendation 39.
126. Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.163 (2).
127. Ibid, ch 7.163.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid.
130. Above n 70.
131. See Moffitt, above n 115, at 130–131. Moffitt counsels that if mediators are aware of potential liability, this will help them to avoid claims and assist them in explaining their liabilities.
132. Coben, J and Thompson, P ‘Disputing irony: a systematic look at litigation about mediation’ (2006) 11 Harv Negot L Rev 43 at 95.Google Scholar
133. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
134. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4, citing Taphooi, above n 75.
135. Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.148. See also Zhao and Koo, above n 2.
136. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 193.
137. See eg Carroll (2001, 2001–2002), above 2; Hughes, above n 17; Cole et al, above n 3.
138. See Carroll (2001), above 2, at 187.
139. Aird v Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1866 para 5.
140. Farm Assist (2) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) [2009] EWHC para 44(2). For an analysis of confidentiality in England and Wales, see eg Brooker, above n 41, ch 5; Burnley and Lascelles, above n 57; Kallipetis, M ‘Mediation privilege and confidentiality and the Eu Directive’ in Goldsmith, Jc, Ingen-Housz, A and Pointon, Gh (eds) ADR in Business: Practice and Issues Across Countries and Cultures , Volume 2 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 2011)Google Scholar; Cornes, D ‘Mediation privilege & the Eu Directive: an opportunity?’ (2008) 74(4) Arbitration 384 Google Scholar; Toulson and Phipps, above n 41; Koo, above n 41.
141. Tomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables [1969] 1 WLR 1378.
142. Neuberger J in Hodgkinson & Corby v Wards Mobility Services [1997] FSR 178 para 191.
143. Unilever Plc v the Proctor and Gamble Co [2000] WLR 2436.
144. Forster v Friedland (unreported), 10 November 1992; CA (Civil Division) Transcript No 1052 of 1992.
145. Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335.
146. Muller v Linsley & Mortimer [1996] PNLR 74.
147. Cutts v Head [1984] ch 290; Rush & Tomkins & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280.
148. Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading Sa v Tmt Asia Ltd [2011] 1 AC 662; Brooker, above n 41, pp 192–193; Ahmed, M ‘Reinforcing the need to protect the without prejudice rule’ (2010) 29(3) Civ Just Q 303 at 306Google Scholar; Suter, E ‘The Devil's in the detail: interpreting compromise agreements after Oceanbulk’ (2011) 77 Arbitration 274.Google Scholar
149. Farm Assist (2), above n 140, para 23. See Brooker, above n 41, pp 200–205.
150. Farm Assist (2), above n 140, para 28.
151. Per Sir T Bingham MR 238 In Re D (Minors) ‘Conciliation: disclosure of information’, citing Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone and Lord Simon of Glaisdale in D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171 paras 231, 238. The court recognised a ‘new category of privilege based on the public interest in the stability of marriage’.
152. See eg Mr Briggs, Justice ‘Mediation privilege’ (2009) 159 New L J Issue 7363, 506 Google Scholar; Mr Briggs, Justice ‘Mediation privilege’ (2009) 159 New L J Issue 7363, 550.Google Scholar
153. See eg Field, R and Wood, N ‘Marketing mediation ethically: the case of confidentiality’ (2005) 5 Qld U Tech L & Just J 143 at 145–146 Google Scholar; Brown v Rice & Patel [2007] EWHC 625 paras 19–20; Cattley & Anor v Pollard [2007] ECHC 3130 (Ch) paras 9–10; Farm Assist (2), above n 140, para 43.
154. Brooker, P ‘Towards a code of professional conduct for construction mediators’ (2011) 3(1) Int'l J L Built Envt 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nolan-Haley, J ‘Informed consent in mediation: a guiding principle for truly educated decision-making’ (1999) 74 Notre Dame L Rev 775 Google Scholar; Imperati, S ‘Mediator practice models: the intersection of ethics and stylistic practices in mediation’ (1997) 33 Willamette L Rev 703 Google Scholar; Alexander, N ‘Mediation and the art of regulation’ (2008) 8(1) Qld U Tech L & Just J 1–23 Google Scholar; Sourdin, T ‘Australian National Mediator Accreditation Scheme: report on the project’ (2007), available at http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/adr/documents/AccreditationReportSept07.pdf (accessed 3 March 2010).Google Scholar
155. See eg M Brunsdon-Tully, above n 13, at 218; Brooker, above n 41; H Genn ‘The privatisation of civil justice is a rule of law issue’ 36th FA Mann Lecture Lincoln's Inn, 19 November 2012; H Genn et al Twisting Arm: Court Referred and Court Linked Mediation under Judicial Pressure Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/07 May 2007; NADRAC 2011, above n 3, s 5.4. The NADRAC report also warns of the likely increase of cases in Australia as the number of mediations rises.
156. Some countries’ state or court rules require parties to remain in mediation for a specified time. For example, Hong Kong's Mediation Practice Directive PD31 requires ‘a minimum level of participation’, which is suggested ‘might be at least one substantive session’ (at App C). See eg Brooker, above n 5, at 147–148.
157. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 190.
158. See eg Zhao and Koo, above n 2, at 681; Moffitt, above n 93; Carroll (2001, 2001–2002), above n 2; Coben and Thompson, above n 132; Cole et al, above n 3.
159. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4. Nadrac lists potential liability, which includes ‘misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or state/territory fair trading laws’.
160. Moffitt, above n 93, at 81. Moffitt identifies that mediators can breach confidentiality ‘internally’ by revealing information to the other side without consent, as well as ‘externally’, to people outside the process.
161. See NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.3. See also Carroll (2001), n 2, at 189–192; Cole et al, above n 3, s 7; Coben and Thompson, above n 132; Zhao and Koo, above n 2.
162. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 190.
163. Ibid.
164. Carroll (2001, 2001–2002), above n 2.
165. See eg Hughes, above n 17; Chaykin, above n 48.
166. Lord Justice Brown-Wilkinson in White v Jones 1995) 2 AC 206 at 271. Two daughters sued a solicitors firm that had failed to change their father's will on his request before his death. See Worthington, S ‘Fiduciaries: when is self-denial obligatory?’ (1999) 58 Camb L J 500 at 500Google Scholar. Fiduciary duties are similarly described in the Australian jurisdiction; see Worthington, ibid, at 505–506, who cites Products v United States at Surgical Corporation (1984) HCA 64.
167. Lord Justice Millett in Mothew v Bristol and West Building Society [1996] EWCA Civ 533. See Worthington, above n 166, at 502.
168. Chaykin, above n 48, at 764; see also Chaykin, above n 2, at 70–71.
169. Chaykin, above n 48, at 749.
170. See Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.14, citing Jaufman v Levine, 2007 WL 2891987 (NDNY 2007), where a claim of breaches of ‘contract negligence and breach of fiduciary duty’ was allowed to continue.
171. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.3, citing David Furia v Hugh N. Helm Iii, Court of Appeals of California, 1st District, 3rd Division, Rehearing Denied, 24 September 2003; 4 Cal Rptr 3d 358.
172. Moffitt, above n 115, at 147, 167; NADRAC (2006) s 5.4.3, which highlights the debate on imposing fiduciary duties on mediators.
173. See eg Carroll (2001, 2001–2002), above n 2; Cole et al, above n 3.
174. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.1. See also Hong Kong Report, above n 37, ch 7.144.
175. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.1.
176. Ibid.
177. Coben and Thompson, above n 132, at 95; Moffitt, above, n 93, at 81. Moffitt estimated in 2003 that ‘hundreds of thousands or even millions’ of mediations had taken place but that there were very few cases against mediators.
178. Coben and Thompson, above n 132, at 96–97.
179. Ibid, at 96–97
180. Ibid, at 96.
181. Ibid, citing Vitakis-Valchine v Valchine, 793 So 2d 1094, 1096–1097 (Fla Dist Ct App 2001) 4th Dist.
182. Coben and Thompson, above n 132, at 97.
183. Ibid, at 98, citing as an example Isaacson v Isaacson, 792 A.2d 525 (NJ Super Ct App Div 2002) NJ Super Ct 560.
184. Esquibel, above n 2, at 160.
185. NADRAC (2011), above n 3, s 5.4.2.
186. Ibid; see also Stulberg, above n 2.
187. See also Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 193.
188. Stulberg, above n 2, at 85.
189. See for example; Cole et al, above n 3. s 11.13, Carroll (2001–2002), above n 2, at 195.
190. Cole et al, above n 3, s 11.13.
191. Ibid, citing Chang's Imports Inc. v Strader 216 F Supp 2d 325 (SDNY 2002), which found that ‘there is almost no law on what the appropriate standard of case is, if any, for a mediator who helps negotiate a settlement between parties’.
192. ‘The model standard of conduct for mediators’, available at http://www.mediate.com/articles/model_standards_of_conflict.cfmhe_updated (accessed 20 April 2015). See also Cole et al, above n 3, s11.13; Moffitt, above n 93, at 85–86.
193. ‘The model standards of conduct for mediators’, ibid, s IV A.
194. Coben and Thompson, above n 132, at 98.
195. Ibid, citing Lehrer v Zwernemann, 14 SW 3d 775 (Tex App Houston 1st Dist 2000).
196. See Coben and Thompson, above n 132, at 98.
197. NADRAC (2006), above n 3, s 8.26.
198. Menkel-Meadow, C ‘Are there systematic ethics issues in Dispute Systems Design?’ (2009) 14 Harv Negot L Rev 195 Google Scholar; Clark, B Lawyers and Mediation (London: Springer, 2012) ch 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, above n 11.
199. Alexander, above n 154, at 2. See for example, Riskin, above n 68, at 7; Mills, K ‘Can a single ethical code respond to all models of mediation?’ (2005) 21 Bond Disp Resol News 5 Google Scholar.
200. Alexander, above n 154; Boon, A, Earle, R and Whyte, A ‘Regulating mediators?’ (2007) 10(1) Legal Ethics 26 at 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; South, J ‘Development of mediator training in England and Wales’ (2009), available at http://www.mediate.com/articles/southJ1.cfm (accessed 30 May 2009).Google Scholar
201. Brooker, above n 41, p 253.
202. Alexander, above n 154, p 2.
203. See for example, Riskin, above n 68; Kovach and Love, above n 70; Stulberg, above n 70; in England and Wales, see eg Brooker, above n 70; Clark, above n 198.
204. Australia National Mediator Standards (2007, 2008); Australian National Mediator Standards: Commentary on Approval Standards, available at http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/adr/documents/Commentaryonpracticestndrds.pdf (accessed 3 March 2010). Brooker, above n 41, pp 255–256; Sourdin, above n 154. Since 1 July 2015, the NMAS has been included in the National Mediator Accreditation System; see http://www.msb.org.au/mediator-standards (accessed 27 April 2016).
205. Oyre, above n 32, at 49–50. Oyre suggests that examples of ‘bad faith’ are illustrated in s 24(1), which permits the court to ‘remove an arbitrator’ under identified circumstances such as when there has been a failure to ‘properly conduct proceedings’, subsection (d)(i), or when delay will cause ‘substantial injustice’, (d)(ii), or where ‘circumstances exist’ that cast ‘justifiable doubts as to his impartiality’. See also Mulcahy, above n 32, p 204, who observes that the parties are not provided with redress for ‘wasted costs or delay’.
206. Cedr Mediation Audit 2014, above n 49, at 10.
207. See eg Brooker, above n 41, pp 250–252; Boon et al, above n 200.
208. See eg Brooker, above n 41; Boon et al, above n 200; Bucklow, A ‘The ‘everywhen’ mediator: the virtues of inconsistency and paradox: the strength, skills, attributes and behaviours of excellent and effective mediators’ (2007) 73(1) Int'l J Arbit, Mediat & Disp Mgmt 40Google Scholar.
209. In March 2015, the Cmc launched its registration scheme for individual members; see http://www.civilmediation.org/about-cmc/15/accredited-mediation-providers (accessed 8 March 2015).
210. Brooker, above n 41, pp 258–259; Brooker, above n 154; Riskin, above n 68, at 7.
211. Boon et al, above n 200, at 48–49; Gould, N, King, C and Hudson-Tyreman, A The Use of Mediation in Construction Disputes: Summary Report of the Final Results (London: King's College London, May 2009) p 27, available at http://www.fenwickelliott.com/files/Summary%20Report%20of%20the%20Final%20Results.pdf (accessed 7 November 2010); above n 163, p 66.Google Scholar
212. Cedr Audit, above n 49, at 10.
213. Carroll (2001), above n 2, at 205.
214. See eg Esquibel, above n 2, at 149–150.
215. Carroll (2001–2002), above n 2, at 182–183.
216. See eg NADRAC (2006, 2011), above n 3.
217. See eg above n 4; Sir Alan Ward in Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd & Anor, above n 5, at 3; Lord Clarke Justice, above n 4; Brooker, above n 5, at 151; Allen, above n 4.
218. See discussion above. See eg NADRAC (2006), above n 3, ss 8.20, 8.30; Hong Kong Report, above n 78, para 7.149.
219. See http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/cheaper,-quicker-and-less-daunting-justice (accessed 17 July 2015). The government plans to divert 80,000 cases into the SCMS.
220. See eg Brown v Rice & Patel , above n 153, para 20; Cattley & Anor v Pollard, above n 153, paras 9, 10; Farm Assist (2), above n 140, para 43.
221. Shipman, S ‘Court approaches to Adr in the civil justice system’ (2006) 25 Civ Just Q 181 at 211.Google Scholar
222. Genn, H Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) pp 119–121.Google Scholar
223. Cole et al, above n 3, s 16.6.
224. Ibid.
225. See Turner, above n 2, at 776.