LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Connelly, C.; Hodelet, N. (2010)
Publisher: Edinburgh University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 6 Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (1995). See also S Roberts, “Settlement as civil justice” (2000) 63 MLR 739.
    • 7 Report by the Business Experts and Law Forum (BELF) (2008, available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Publications/2008/10/30105800/0) para 3.2.1.
    • 8 Review (n 1) 165.
    • 9 It cites the constitutional right of access to the courts, the need for precedent, cost, and the belief that the system already encourages early settlement of disputes.
    • 10 The BELF Report (n 7) cites speed, cost and self-determination. To these could be added confidentiality, the preservation of business relationships and the potential for creative solutions.
    • 11 Review (n 1) 169.
    • 12 See, in England: H Genn et al, Twisting Arms: Court Referred and Court Linked Mediation under Judicial Pressure (2007); in Canada: R G Hann et al, Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program (Rule 24.1): Final Report - The First 23 Months (2001); in Italy: G De Palo and P Harley, “Mediation in Italy: exploring the contradictions” (2005) 21 Negotiation Journal 469; in Australia: D Spencer, “Mandatory mediation and neutral evaluation: a reality in New South Wales” (2000) 11 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 237; in Germany: K Funken, “Court-connected mediation in Japan and Germany” (2001) University of Queensland School of Law Working Paper No 867; in the USA: R Wissler, “The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases” (2004) 22 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 55.
    • 13 C McEwan and R Maiman, “Small claims mediation in Maine: an empirical assessment” (1981) 33 Maine L Rev 237; Wissler (n 12); Hann (n 12).
    • 14 See Genn et al, Twisting Arms (n 12).
    • 15 Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132, r 44.5(3)(a)(ii).
    • 16 See Genn et al, Twisting Arms (n 12) for a useful discussion of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 WLR 3002 and related decisions.
    • 17 Ministry of Justice, Pre-action Protocol for Defamation (2006, available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/ civil/procrules_fin/pdf/protocols/prot_def.pdf) para 3.7.
    • 18 Council Directive 2008/52 OJ 2008 L136/3.
    • 19 As suggested by T Schultz, “Regulatory challenges posed by the enforcement of mediation outcomes” (2003, available at www.online-adr.org/2ndUNECE_Talk.pdf).
    • 20 This scheme has an upper limit of £5,000, is staffed by civil servants and takes place over the phone in the majority of cases (87%). It is one element of a Ministry of Justice policy “to mainstream mediation into the work of the courts”: Review (n 1) 307-308.
    • 21 Review (n 1) 1.
    • 22 A search of the US legal database HeinOnline, conducted as part of the research for this note, yielded 45,000 articles on mediation.
    • 23 Review (n 1) 311-318.
    • 24 L B Bingham, T Nabatchi, J M Senger and M S Jackman, “Dispute resolution and the vanishing trial: comparing federal government litigation and ADR outcomes” (2009) 24 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 225.
    • 25 S Roberts and M Palmer, Dispute Processes: ADR and the Primary Forms of Decision-Making (2005) 45.
    • 26 Wissler (n 12).
    • 27 Wissler (n 12) at 58, 65 and 74.
    • 28 See also C McEwan and R Maiman, “Mediating in small claims court: achieving compliance through consent” (1984) 18 Law and Society Review 11.
    • 29 Review (n 1) 300, referring to the Edinburgh In-Court Advice and Mediation Projects: “all the agreements were thought to have been honoured”.
    • 30 Wissler (n 12) at 60, 69.
    • 31 J Lande, “Focusing on program design issues in future research on court-connected mediation” (2004) 22 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 89, 97.
    • 32 Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, “Civil justice: where next?” (2008) 53(8) JLSS 14. See Review (n 1) 169.
    • 33 Rodger (n 32) at 16. Interestingly, the academic who coined the phrase “the vanishing trial” has recently acknowledged that the phenomenon seems to have little connection to ADR: M Galanter, “The vanishing trial: an examination of trials and related matters in federal and state courts” (2004) 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 459 at 517.
    • 34 Rodger (n 32) at 16.
    • 48 Ministry of Justice, Annual Pledge Report 2007/8 (2009, available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/ publications/docs/alternative-dispute-resolution-07-08.pdf).
    • 13 Halifax Life Limited at para 11.
    • 14 (1866) LR 2 CP 174.
    • 15 This rule is often expressed using the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur, which Trayner translates as: “Every ratification operates retrospectively, and is equivalent to a prior order or authority. To ratify or homologate that which has been done without authority has the same effect as if the act had been authorised at the time of its performance”: J Trayner, Latin Maxims and Phrases, 4th edn by A G M Duncan (1993) 421. See also L Macgregor, “Agency and mandate”, in The Laws of Scotland: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Reissue (2002) para 61.
    • 16 This is not the position in much of the rest of Europe and beyond: the company once formed can ratify the agent's actions: see D Busch and L Macgregor, “Comparative law evaluation”, in D Busch and L Macgregor (eds), The Unauthorised Agent: Perspectives from European and Comparative Law (2009) 435-438; D DeMott, “Ratification: useful but uneven”, European Review of Private Law, forthcoming.
    • 17 An issue noted by the High Court of Australia in Black v Smallwood (1966) 117 CLR 52 at para 4.
    • 18 Cotronic (UK) Limited v Dezonie [1991] BCC 200.
    • 19 Badgerhill Properties Ltd v Cottrell [1991] BCC 463.
    • 20 J H Begg, A Treatise on the Law of Scotland Relating to Law Agents, 2nd edn (1883) 73, relying on Rankine v Corson (1825) 4 S 127 (NS 128), Lindsay v Watson (1843) 5 D 1194, and McCall v Sharp (1862) 24 D 400.
    • 21 SI 2007/2157. This was asserted by the pursuers in Halifax Life Limited: see para 3.
    • 22 In Coral (UK) Limited v Rechtman and Altro Mozart Food Handels GmbH [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 235, another company within the company group had undertaken to implement the contract when it transpired that the company which was the ostensible contracting party had been incorrectly designated in the contract. In Badgerhill Properties Ltd v Cottrell [1991] BCC 463, reliance on a trading name rather than the actual company name enabled the court to find that a contract existed, this contract being possible to perform by a company in existence.
    • 23 [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 235 at 239-240.
    • 24 Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan v Salvesen & Co (1902) 10 SLT 44 (OH), (1903) 10 SLT 543 (IH), (1903) 6 F (HL) 101 (the requirements of the action were discussed here even though it was not, in fact, a relevant case); Anderson v Croall & Sons (1903) 6 F 153; Irving v Burns 1915 SC 260. And see also the comments of Lord MacKay in Royal Bank of Scotland v Skinner 1931 SLT 382. For analysis of the action, see L Macgregor, “Scots law” in Busch & Macgregor (eds), The Unauthorised Agent (n 16) 291.
    • 25 Firbanks Exrs v Humphreys (1886) 18 QBD 54 at 60 per Lord Esher MR, approved by the Inner House in Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan v Salvesen & Co (1903) 6 F 64 at 76 per Lord Moncreiff, delivering the opinion of the court, and by Lord Halsbury LC in the House of Lords (1903) 6 F (HL) 101 at 101. Lord Moncreiff also refers with approval to Collen v Wright (1857) 8 E & B 647 per Willes J at 657, in which the Court of the Exchequer Chamber affirmed the earlier decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, (1857) 7 E & B 301.
    • 26 Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan v Salvesen & Co (1903) 6 F 64 at 75 per Lord Moncreiff, relying on Simons v Patchett (1857) 7 E & B 568 (erroneously cited as Simons v Patchet 7 E & B 586) and Hughes v Graeme (1864) 33 LJ QB 335.
    • 9 Young at 70 per the Lord Justice-General (Clyde).
    • 10 G H Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn by M G A Christie, vol 1 (2000) para 41.10. See, further: M G A Christie, Breach of the Peace (1990) paras 2.41-2.43; Anon, “Breach of the peace” 1959 SLT (News) 229 at 232.
    • 11 G H Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 2nd edn (1978) para 41.10. This statement does not appear in the latest edition of the work, which suggests that the decision in Smith was interpreted as casting doubt upon the reliability of Young (see Gordon, Criminal Law (n 10) para 41.10).
    • 12 1992 JC 159.
    • 13 Dochree at 159 per the Lord Justice-Clerk (Ross). Cf Thompson v MacPhail 1989 SLT 637.
    • 14 Smith at para 20 per Lord Coulsfield. The court did, in this “somewhat obscure” passage, urge caution where the conduct takes place in “private” - a fact acknowledged by the court in Harris at para 19.
    • 15 2004 JC 136 at para 12 per the Lord Justice-General (Cullen).
    • 16 Harris at para 19.
    • 17 Para 21.
    • 18 [2008] HCJAC 5, 2008 JC 262.
    • 19 Para 5.
    • 20 Harris at para 17.
    • 31 Lord Advocate's Reference (No 1 of 2001) 2002 SLT 466; Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 s 1.
    • 32 R A Duff, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law (2007) 141.
    • 33 S E Marshall and R A Duff, “Criminalization and sharing wrongs” (1998) 11 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 7.
    • 34 Duff, Answering for Crime (n 32) 141 (emphasis added).
    • 35 Harris at para 26.
    • 36 For an eye-opening discussion of the range of conduct charged as breach of the peace prior to Smith, see P R Ferguson, “Breach of the peace and the European Convention on Human Rights” (2001) 5 EdinLR 145 at 145-146.
    • 21 See Gaygusuz v Austria (1996) 23 EHRR 364; Stec v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR SE18 at paras 47-65; Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47; App No 77782/01 Luczak v Poland 27 Nov 2007 at paras 46-60, extending the ambit of property rights in art 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR to social security matters.
    • 22 See Sidabras v Lithuania (2006) 42 EHRR 6 at paras 38-63.
    • 23 In other words, from a formal to a substantive theory of equality. See O'Connell (n 17) at 211-214.
    • 24 Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 15; Jordan v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 2; DH v Czech Republic (2006) 43 EHRR 41; Adami v Malta (2007) 44 EHRR 3.
    • 25 Baczowski v Poland (2009) 48 EHRR 19, concerning arts 11 and 14.
    • 26 Sutherland v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR CD22; Salguero da Silva Mouta v Portugal (2001) 31 EHRR 10; EB v France (2004) 38 EHRR 21; M v Serbia [2007] 1 FCR 760; App No 30658/05 Beian v Romania 6 Dec 2007; Paulik v Slovakia (2008) 46 EHRR 10; Carson v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 41.
    • 27 Carson v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 41. Arguably, this is similar to the approach which the UK courts appear to be moving towards: see R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 614, [2007] 1 WLR 3067; AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 1 WLR 1434.
    • 28 Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas v Austria (2009) 28 EHRR 17 at para 87.
    • 29 The Court had tended to afford to national authorities a wide margin of appreciation regarding art 14, particularly where national security, public morality and taxation were concerned, and where no common standard existed across Europe (see e.g. Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 38; Carson v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 41). However, this no longer seems to be the case where distinctions are made on the basis of sexual orientation in child adoption cases (see Frette v France (2004) 38 EHRR 21; EB v France (2008) 47 EHRR 21).
    • 30 See e.g. P Bartlett, O Lewis and O Thorold, Mental Disability and the European Convention on Human Rights (2007) 20.
    • 31 See also arts 5(3) (equality and discrimination), 14(2) (liberty), 24(2)(c), (5) (education) and 27(1)(i) (employment), all of which refer to the requirement for reasonable accommodation.
    • 32 Council Directive 2000/78 OJ 2000 L 303/16, art 5 and preamble.
    • 33 O De Schutter, “Reasonable accommodations and positive obligations in the European Convention on Human Rights”, in A Lawson and C Gooding (eds), Disability Rights in Europe: From Theory to Practice (2005) 35, 61. See also O'Connell (n 17).
    • 34 Botta v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 at paras 34 and 35.
    • 35 App No 38621/97 Zehnalová and Zehnal v Czech Republic 14 May 2002.
    • 36 Marzari v Italy (1999) 28 EHRR CD175.
    • 37 App No 27677/02 Sentges v Netherlands 8 Jul 2003.
    • 38 Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47 at paras 51-66; DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3 at para 175. See also App No 42949/98 Runkee v United Kingdom 5 Oct 2007 at para 40.
    • 39 Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 15.
    • 40 Thlimmenos at para 44.
    • 41 Thlimmenos at paras 47 and 48.
    • 42 See e.g. Belgian Linguistic Case (1979-80) 1 EHRR 252 at para 10; Thlimmenos at para 44; Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47 at para 51; DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3 at para 175.
    • 43 See Mental Disability Advocacy Center (n 2). Switzerland has yet to sign the Convention.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article