PAST AND PRESENT

September 2007

Disputes Resolved launch Mediation Awareness Campaign in conjunction with South East Business.

November 2006

VALETE

John Mulcare, a founder and director of Disputes Resolved, retired from the firm on the 30th November 2006 on his moving abroad.

December 2005

83.5% SUCCESS RATE!

A review of Disputes Resolved's cases from 1993 to the end of 2005 reveals that 83.5% of its cases were successfully resolved by mediation.  This excludes disputes which were resolved shortly after an unsuccessful mediation attempt without involving Court proceedings.

August 2004

• DISPUTES RESOLVED PROVIDES MEDIATION SERVICES TO MORE COURTS

Disputes Resolved are a recognised provider of mediation services to the Brighton, Chichester, Eastbourne, Hastings, Haywards Heath, Horsham, Lewes and Worthing County Courts.  Please visit "Court Schemes" on www.specialistpanels.com for further information.

October 2003

• JOHN MULCARE APPOINTED LOCAL CONCILIATION OFFICER

John Mulcare, a Director of Disputes Resolved, has been appointed as a Local Conciliation Officer by the Law Society, to deal with service complaints by clients about their solicitors, received by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors..

February 2003

• WHETHER OR NOT TO MEDIATE?

John Mulcare of Disputes Resolved has written a key article (published in Issue 31 of "The Bulletin of the Agricultural Law Association") analysing an important court decision which sets out the key reasons why parties should attempt mediation wherever possible, and the financial risks of refusing to do so.  You can read the full article here.

November 2002

• DISPUTES RESOLVED IN PILOT COURT MEDIATION SERVICE

Disputes Resolved are assisting in the provision of a Pilot Mediation Service launched last year from the Brighton County Court.

Judge Michael Kennedy QC Designated Civil Judge for Sussex said, "I am delighted that Brighton County Court is offering parties ready access to a locally based mediation scheme.  I hope as many parties as possible take the opportunity to use it, now that the Court of Appeal has made it clear that, in appropriate circumstances, a refusal or failure to attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution may have significant consequences upon costs".

The scheme was initially being provided in the Brighton County Court and is now to be publicised from all Courts in Sussex.

March 2002

• APPEAL JUDGES DENY COSTS BECAUSE OF REFUSAL TO ATTEMPT ADR

In the recent decision of Dunnett v. Railtrack plc. (in administration) the Court of Appeal denied a costs award to Railtrack, even though they won their appeal, as they had refused to attempt alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

The appeal judges indicated that parties and their legal advisers must consider ADR (e.g. Mediation) fully, especially where the Court has suggested it.  If, despite this, a party rejects ADR, then that party risks adverse costs consequences.

If, therefore, you are contemplating or involved in legal proceedings, ADR should be explored at the earliest practical opportunity - costs are only one of several matters in proceedings when ADR can be of benefit to you.