compulsory Mediation
Imagine for a moment that mediation is a product—a stain remover—that can be purchased from any supermarket. Almost all who have used it praise it highly. The product “does what it says on the tin”: it is cheap, quick, is easy to use, and saves time, cost and energy. On the adjacent shelf is another stain remover called litigation.
Almost all who have used it are highly critical of it: it frequently fails to deliver its promise of success: it is extremely costly, very slow, and takes up huge amounts of time, money and energy. Yet people queue up to purchase litigation, and leave mediation on the shelf. Why?
This bizarre situation, which defies all market trends, was confirmed by Professor Dame Hazel Genn in her research into the Automatic Referral toMediation Pilot Scheme at Central London County Court, where in approximately 80% of cases, one or both parties objected to mediation. Other research also shows that people are not as enthusiastic about mediation as the government, the judges, and the mediation community think they ought to be.
