DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation REPORT The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission’s principal role is to keep the law under AND CONCILIATION MEDIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION: ALTERNATIVE review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. This role is carried out primarily under a Programme of REPORT Law Reform. The Commission’s Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared and approved under the 1975 Act following broad consultation and discussion. The ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, RESOLUTION: the Commission’s role also includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves incorporating MEDIATION AND all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. The Legislation Directory (previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes) CONCILIATION is a searchable guide to legislative changes. LRC 98-2010 ADDRESS TELEPHONE FAX EMAIL WEBSITE (LRC 98-2010) 35-39 Shelbourne Road Dublin 4 Ireland +353 1 6377600 +353 1 6377601 [email protected] www.lawreform.ie The Law Reform Commission is a statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975 113681 - LRC alternative dispute 1 09/11/2010 14:29 www.lawreform.ie 113681 - LRC alternative dispute 2 09/11/2010 14:29 REPORT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION (LRC 98-2010) © COPYRIGHT Law Reform Commission FIRST PUBLISHED November 2010 ISSN 1393-3132 LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLE The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission‘s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published over 150 documents (Consultation Papers and Reports) containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. The Commission‘s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in December 2007 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, the Commission‘s role includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. Under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the Attorney General it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question. The Legislation Directory - previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes - is a searchable annotated guide to legislative changes. After the Commission took over responsibility for this important resource, it decided to change the name to Legislation Directory to indicate its function more clearly. ii MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commission consists of a President, one full-time Commissioner and three part-time Commissioners. The Commissioners at present are: President: The Hon Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness Former Judge of the Supreme Court Full-time Commissioner: Patricia T. Rickard-Clarke, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Professor Finbarr McAuley Part-time Commissioner: Marian Shanley, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: The Hon Mr Justice Donal O‘Donnell, Judge of the Supreme Court iii LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFF Director of Research: Raymond Byrne BCL, LLM (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Legal Researchers: Dannie Hanna BCL (NUI), LLM (Cantab) Helen Kehoe BCL (Law with French Law) (NUI), LLM (Dub), Solicitor Donna Lyons LLB (Dub), LLM (NYU) Tara Murphy BCL (Law with French Law) (NUI), LLM (Essex), Barrister-at-Law Jane O‗Grady BCL, LLB (NUI), LPC (College of Law) Darelle O‗Keeffe LLB (UL), H Dip Soc Pol (NUI), EMA (EIUC) Helen Whately LLB, LLM (Dub) STATUTE LAW RESTATEMENT Project Manager for Restatement: Alma Clissmann, BA (Mod), LLB, Dip Eur Law (Bruges), Solicitor Legal Researcher: Andrew Glynn BBLS (NUI), LLM (Dub) LEGISLATION DIRECTORY Project Manager for Legislation Directory: Heather Mahon LLB (ling. Ger.), M.Litt, Barrister-at-Law Legal Researcher: Aoife Clarke BA (Int.), LLB, LLM (NUI) iv ADMINISTRATION STAFF Executive Officers: Deirdre Bell Simon Fallon Legal Information Manager: Conor Kennedy BA, H Dip LIS Cataloguer: Eithne Boland BA (Hons), HDip Ed, HDip LIS Clerical Officers: Ann Browne Ann Byrne Liam Dargan PRINCIPAL LEGAL RESEARCHER FOR THIS REPORT Nicola White LLB, LLM (Dub), Attorney at Law (NY) v CONTACT DETAILS Further information can be obtained from: Law Reform Commission 35-39 Shelbourne Road Ballsbridge Dublin 4 Telephone: +353 1 637 7600 Fax: +353 1 637 7601 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lawreform.ie vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission would like to thank the following people who provided valuable assistance: Mr Fergus Armstrong, Director, One Resolve Mr William Aylmer, Partner, Compton Aylmer Solicitors Mr Joe Behan, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Irish Branch Mr Ciaran Breen, Director, State Claims Agency Mr James Bridgeman, Senior Counsel Dr Nael Bunni, Chartered Engineer, Bunni & Associates Ms Bernadette Casey, Mediator Ms Maureen Chalmers, Senior Social Worker, WISE Mr Oliver Connolly, FriaryLaw ADR Mr Michael Culloty, National Social Policy & Communications Officer, MABS Ms Susan Dowling, Dispute Resolution Adviser, ECC Dublin Mr Liam Duffy, Dublin Hospitals Group Risk Management Forum Ms Karen Erwin, President, Mediators Institute of Ireland Mr Ciaran Fahy, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Mr Ronan Feehily, Solicitor Ms Nicola Flannery, Solicitor Mr Jay Folberg, Executive Director, JAMS Foundation (US-based ADR organisation) Mr Michael Gorman, FriaryLaw ADR Ms Wendy Gray, Department of Enterprise Trade & Employment Mr Eamon Harrington, Solicitor, Comyn Kelleher Solicitors Ms Tricia Hayes, Mediator Mr David Hickey, Coordinator, Cork Community Mediation Service Ms Maria Hurley, Director of Policy, Advocacy & Communications, National Consumer Agency Ms Phyl Kealy, Solicitor Mr Joseph Kelly, Partner, A & L Goodbody Solicitors & former Chairman of the Law Society Committee on Arbitration & Mediation Mr David Lawless, Solicitor Mr Kevin Liston, Solicitor Mr Ed Madden, National University of Ireland Maynooth Mr Patrick Maguire, Chartered Accountant, Maguire & Co Mr Sheila Maguire, Solicitor, Daniel O‘Connell & Son Ms Patricia Mallon, Partner, Eoin Daly Solicitors Ms Paulyn Marrinan Quinn, Senior Counsel and Ombudsman for the Defence Forces Mr Johnnie McCoy, Barrister-at-Law Mr Donagh McGowan, Solicitor, Mason, Hayes & Curran Solicitors Mr Robert O’Donnell, Director, Woodstock Institute for Negotiation Mr Turlough O’Donnell, Senior Counsel Ms Polly Phillimore, Family Mediation Service Ms Melanie Pine, Director, The Equality Tribunal Mr Noel Rubotham, Director of Reform & Development, Courts Service Ms Delma Sweeney, National University of Ireland Maynooth Mr Gordon Wade, FriaryLaw ADR Hon Daniel Weinstein, JAMS Mr Michael Williams, Solicitor Full responsibility for this publication lies, however, with the Commission. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 A Background to the Report 1 B The Commission‘s approach to alternative dispute resolution, in particular mediation and conciliation 1 (1) The role of the courts in encouraging parties to agree solutions 1 (2) Delays in the court process and the development of ADR 1 (3) The court process and ADR 2 (4) Efficiency, including cost efficiency 2 (5) Other benefits of ADR, including flexibility 3 (6) An integrated approach to dispute resolution 3 (7) The main focus of the Report 4 C Outline of Report Chapters 4 CHAPTER 1 ADR: AN OVERVIEW 7 A Introduction 7 B Access to Justice and ADR 7 C Appropriateness of ADR 9 D Conclusion 11 CHAPTER 2 ADR: TERMINOLOGY & SCOPE 13 A Introduction 13 B Definition and scope of the term ‗ADR‘ 13 (1) ADR: Dispute Resolution and Prevention 13 (2) General Scope of ADR 15 C Distinguishing between mediation and conciliation 17 (1) Role of the Third Party 17 (2) Rights Based v Interest Based Resolutions 18 (3) Conclusion 18 D Statutory Definition of Mediation 19 (1) Structured Formal Process 20 (2) Differing Models of Mediation 20 (3) Conclusion 22 E Statutory Definition of Conciliation 22 F General Scope of Statutory Mediation & Conciliation 24 (1) Civil & Commercial Disputes 24 (2) Cross-Border Civil & Commercial Disputes 26 G Conclusion 27 CHAPTER 3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF MEDIATION & CONCILIATION 29 A Introduction 29 B Consultation Paper 29 C Voluntary Nature of Mediation & Conciliation 30 (1) Consultation Paper 30 (2) Right to Withdraw from Mediation or Conciliation 30 (3) Conclusion 32 D Confidentiality 32 (1) Consultation Paper 32 (2) Increase of Satellite Litigation 33 ix (3) Confidentiality in the 2008 EC Directive on Mediation 37 (4) Distinct Form of Privilege for Mediation & Conciliation 38 (5) Mediation and Conciliation Communications 40 (6) Holders of the Privilege 41 (7) Waiver of the Privilege 42 (8) Exceptions to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Europe and Eurasia
    E u r o p e a n d E u r a s i a 1 4 European Union Law L u d w i g K r ä m e r ( A ) I n t r o d u c t i o n Th e European Union legal system 1 4 . 0 1 Th e European Union (‘EU’) is a regional integration organisation consisting at present of twenty-seven European Member States that have transferred part of their sovereignty to the EU. Th e EU is based on international treaties – the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) – and its power to act is laid down in the various provisions of these treaties; there is no ‘common law’ applicable to it. In this regard, the EU is similar to a civil law country. 1 4 . 0 2 A n u m b e r o f s p e c i fi c features distinguish the EU from traditional international organisations. First, the TEU and TFEU address not only the relations between the Member States and the EU insti- tutions, but also establish rights and obligations for individuals. Second, though legislative decisions in climate change matters are taken by majority vote in the European Parliament – whose members are directly elected – and the Council, which consists of the governments of the twenty-seven Member States, the adop- tion of legislation on climate change is only possible on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission. Th e Commission oversees the application of EU law in the Member States, and has the duty to act in the general interest of the EU rather than in the interest of the individual Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and Others (Appellants)
    Michaelmas Term [2011] UKSC 46 On appeal from: [2011] CSIH 31 JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 October 2011 Heard on 13, 14 and 15 June 2011 Appellant 1st Respondent Richard Keen QC Alan Dewar QC Jane Munro James Mure QC (Instructed by Brodies (Instructed by Scottish LLP) Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) 2nd Respondent 3rd-10th Respondents Ruth Crawford QC Aidan O’Neill QC John MacGregor Chris Pirie (Instructed by Office of (Instructed by Thompsons the Solicitor to the Solicitors Glasgow Advocate General for Scotland) Scotland Intervener (First Minister Intervener (Attorney of Wales) General for Northern Ireland) Theodore Huckle QC John F Larkin QC Clive Lewis QC Donal Sayers BL (Instructed by Welsh (Instructed by Solicitors Assembly Government for the Attorney General Legal Services for Northern Ireland) Department, Cardiff) Intervener (Friends of the Intervener (Department of Earth Scotland Ltd) Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)) Simon Collins Paul Maguire QC Paul McLaughlin BL (Instructed by Patrick (Instructed by Campbell & Co Solicitors) Departmental Solicitor’s Office) LORD HOPE 1. The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers’ liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer’s negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1995 Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A. McEwen Nancy H. Rogers Richard J. Maiman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation McEwen, Craig A.; Rogers, Nancy H.; and Maiman, Richard J., "Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation" (1995). Minnesota Law Review. 1059. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1059 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation Craig A. McEwen, Nancy H. Rogers, and Richard J. Maiman* Introduction ............................................. 1319 I. The 'Fairness" Debate .............................. 1323 II. Evaluating the Two Dominant Statutory Approaches ......................................... 1329 A. The "Regulatory Approach" ...................... 1330 1. Mediator Duties Regarding Fairness ......... 1332 2. Case Selection ............................... 1335 3. Issue Limitations ............................ 1340 4. Mediator Qualifications ...................... 1343 5. Lawyer and Court Review
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2011 Volume 1, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2011 volume 1, issue 1 5 Southampton Student Law Review University of Southampton School of Law Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review School of Law University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton School of Law All rights reserved. Copyright© 2011 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. The Editors wish to thank Dr. Oren Ben Dor, Dr. Alun Gibbs and Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson. © 2011 Southampton Student Law Review ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2011) 1 S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2011 Editor Harry East Associate Editors Ross W Martin Emma Nottingham Thomas Webber Editorial Board Semande Ayihongbe Aysegul Bugra Dingjing Huang Haedong Jeon Assad Khan Konstantinos Kofopoulos Miao Li Ioanna Magklasi Siven Pillay Rungien Meixian Song Valerio Torti Jingbo Zhang Academic Advisors Dr. Oren Ben Dor Dr. Alun Gibbs Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson The editors wish to thank all members of the University of Southampton School of Law who have helped in the creation of this volume Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Des V´Ehicules A` Moteur
    MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur VOLUME 4 (Cited 4 M.V.R. (6th)) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEUR´ EN CHEF Murray D. Segal, B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. Deputy Attorney General Province of Ontario ASSOCIATE EDITORS/REDACTEURS´ ADJOINTS Justice Rick Libman Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) Toronto, Ontario John C. Pearson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Liz Rice, B.A., LL.B. Director, Crown Operations Barrister & Solicitor Central West Region Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Attorney General Ontario CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Editorial Production and Manufacturing Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Dionne Chambers, B.A., LL.B. Jim Fitch, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Natasha Major, B.A., LL.L. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Anne Simpson, B.A., M.L.S., LL.B. Eden Nameri, B.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Jackie Bowman LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Content Editor Bilingual Legal Writer MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS, a national series of topical law reports, is Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur, une s´erie na- published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $362.00 per bound volume in- tionale de recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Reform – the New UK Regime: Law-Now Alerts, Tools and Latest News
    Regulatory reform – the new UK regime: Law-Now alerts, tools and latest news Law-Now alerts and other tools Chart: International, European and UK institutions (the 2013 position) (3/07/13) Law-Now: “ The Banking Standards Report: The new offence of reckless misconduct ” (18/07/13) Law Now: “ The Government responds to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Report ” (12/07/13) Law-Now: “ Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Final Report ” (25/06/13) Click here to access archived Law-Now alerts and other tools Latest news Topics covered UK FSCS reform UK The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2014/823 (C.32) This Order brings into force certain provisions of the Act relating to the competition functions given to the Payment Services Regulator (established under this Act) concurrently with CMA (established under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013). This is the fourth commencement order to be made under the Act. (Date in force: 1/04/14) (27/03/14) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/823/pdfs/uksi_20140823_en.pdf The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Transitional Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2014/835 This Order makes various supplemental and transitional provisions in consequence of provisions made by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013/1881) (“the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order”). Article 2 amends the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order. Part 20 FSMA provides an exemption from the need for authorisation for members of professional bodies who carry on regulated activity which is merely incidental to the provision of professional services; such regulated activity must be the only regulated activity the member firm undertakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution Lisa Blomgren Amsler Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, [email protected]
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Southern Methodist University SMU Law Review Volume 70 Article 7 Issue 4 ADR Symposium Part 2 of 2 2017 Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution Lisa Blomgren Amsler Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, [email protected] Alexander B. Avtgis [email protected] Michael Scott aJ ckman Indiana University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Lisa Blomgren Amsler, et al., Dispute System Design and Bias in Dispute Resolution, 70 SMU L. Rev. 913 (2017) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol70/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. DISPUTE SYSTEM DESIGN AND BIAS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION Lisa Blomgren Amsler, Alexander B. Avtgis, and M. Scott Jackman* ABSTRACT This article examines the role of mediator race and gender in perceptions of procedural justice as measure of accountability and representative bu- reaucracy in a national mediation program for complaints of employment discrimination at a large federal organization, the United States Postal Ser- vice. Mediation represents a forum of accountability in which employees may hold an employer accountable for violating federal law prohibiting forms of employment discrimination, in this case, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and sexual harassment. Representative bureaucracy theory suggests passive or symbolic representation when the demographics of public officials should mirror those of the public they serve.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice: Keeping the Doors Open Transcript
    Access to Justice: Keeping the doors open Transcript Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 12:00AM ACCESS TO JUSTICE: KEEPING THE DOORS OPEN Michael Napier Introduction In this Reading I would like to explore the various doors that need to be located, and then opened, if people are to gain access to justice. Obtaining access means negotiating an opening, so it is appropriate that this evening we are gathered together at Gresham's College, described in Claire Tomalin's biography of Samuel Pepys [1] as the 'first Open University'. In 1684, when Pepys was its President, the Royal Society used to meet at Gresham's College for open discussion, studying the evidence of experiments that would prise open the doors of access to scientific knowledge. But access to legal knowledge is very different from the formulaic precision of a scientific experiment, and those who seek access to justice need to know how to negotiate the route. It is not easy. As we all made our way here this evening along Holborn to the ancient splendour of Barnard's Inn Hall we were actually following in the footsteps of the many citizens who have trodden for centuries the footpaths and byways of Holborn, pursing access to justice: 'London 1853. Michaelmas term lately over. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus waddling... up Holborn hill. Fog everywhere. And hard by Temple Bar in Lincoln's Inn Hall at the very heart of the fog sits the Lord High Chancellor..
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted
    Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted by Trevor Jonathan Fox to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Legal Practice In July 2015 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature………………………………………………………………………………… 1 | P a g e ABSTRACT Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims This thesis seeks to answer the primary question as to whether Product Liability Claims are socially desirable by reference to three Product Liability case studies and a survey of 132 archived Product Liability claims. These constitute a representative random sample of Product Liability cases handled by the Author’s Legal Practice. This practice has provided a window through which serious failings are identified in (i) the strict liability based Product Liability Directive; (ii) tort itself as a mechanism for compensating injured persons; and (iii) the procedural infrastructure in which claims are made, as recently reformed in accordance with Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations. This thesis tests Product Liability claims against the objectives of tort: deterrence; corrective justice; retribution and vindication; distributive justice and compensation. It is found that Product Liability claims fail to meet the defined standard of social desirability. There is nothing special about products to necessitate or justify a bespoke system of liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Conciliation and Mediation and Their Differences
    CONCEPTS OF CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION AND THEIR DIFFERENCES by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao One of the questions constantly asked by many is as to what is meant by conciliation and mediation, whether they are the same and, if not, whether there are any differences? Conciliation and Mediation Whether, in common parlance, there is some difference between conciliation and mediation or not, it is however clear that two statutes by Parliament treat them as different. (a) In the year 1996, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was passed and sec. 30 of that Act, which is in Part I, provides that an arbitral tribunal may try to have the dispute settled by use of ‘mediation’ or ‘conciliation’. Sub-section (1) of sec. 30 permits the arbitral tribunal to “use mediation, conciliation or other procedures”, for the purpose of reaching settlement. (b) The Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 which introduced sec. 89, too speaks of ‘conciliation’ and ‘mediation’ as different concepts. Order 10 Rules 1A, 1B, 1C of the Code also go along with sec. 89. Thus our Parliament has made a clear distinction between conciliation and mediation. In Part III of the 1996 Act (sections 61 to 81) which deals with ‘Conciliation’ there is no definition of ‘conciliation’. Nor is there any definition of ‘conciliation’ or ‘mediation’ in sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in 1999). Conciliation In order to understand what Parliament meant by ‘Conciliation’, we have necessarily to refer to the functions of a ‘Conciliator’ as visualized by Part III of the 1996 Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Conciliation Rules
    PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES 147 OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES CONTENTS Introduction 151 Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Conciliation Rules 155 Application of the Rules (Article 1) 155 Commencement of Conciliation Proceedings (Article 2) 155 Number of Conciliators (Article 3) 156 Appointment of Conciliators (Article 4) 156 Submission of Statements to Conciliator (Article 5) 157 Representation and Assistance (Article 6) 157 Role of Conciliator (Article 7) 157 Administrative Assistance (Article 8) 158 Communication between Conciliator and Parties (Article 9) 158 Disclosure of Information (Article 10) 159 Co-operation of Parties with Conciliator (Article 11) 159 Suggestions by Parties for Settlement of Dispute (Article 12) 159 Settlement Agreement (Article 13) 159 Confidentiality (Article 14) 160 Termination of Conciliation Proceedings (Article 15) 160 Resort to Arbitral or Judicial Proceedings (Article 16) 161 Costs (Article 17) 161 Deposits (Article 18) 162 Role of Conciliator in Other Proceedings (Article 19) 162 Asmissibility of Evidence in Other Proceedings (Article 20) 162 Notes to the Text 164 149 OPTIONAL CONCILIATION RULES INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Rules Parties who have disputes that they are unable to settle through consultation and negotiation with each other may wish to consider conciliation as a method for resolving their differences without the need to resort to arbitration or judicial means. Although the benefits of conciliation are widely recognized, some parties may hesitate to enter into conciliation because they may be unfamiliar with the process or may have different views concerning how a conciliation should be conducted. In order to facilitate greater use of conciliation, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has, with the approval of the Administrative Council, established these Optional Conciliation Rules (‘the PCA Optional Conciliation Rules’).
    [Show full text]
  • Title 35 Public Health and Safety
    TITLE 35 - PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 1 - ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1 - IN GENERAL 35-1-101. Local contributions; disposition. All monies paid to the state treasurer representing contributions by city councils, county commissioners, trustees of school districts, or other public agencies, for public health purposes, shall be set up and designated on the books of the state treasurer in a separate account, and shall be expended and disbursed upon warrants drawn by the state auditor against said account when the vouchers therefor have been approved by the department of health. 35-1-102. Sanitation of public institutions. It shall be the duty of the officers, managers, superintendents, proprietors and lessees of all hospitals, asylums, infirmaries, prisons, jails, schools, theaters, public places and public institutions to remedy any and all defects relating to the unsanitary condition of such institution, or institutions, as may be under their control, when such defects shall have been called to their attention in writing by the department of health. 35-1-103. Neglect or failure of officials to perform duty. Any member of the department of health, any county health officer, or any officer, superintendent, or principal of any city, town, county or institution named in this act, who shall fail or neglect to perform any of the duties herein required of them, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or shall be confined in the county jail for a period of not less than six (6) months, nor more than a year, or both.
    [Show full text]