2001 Leeds County Court
This page contains an outline of this research, and a summary of the key findings. Details of how to find the full report can be found at the bottom of the page.
Title
“The Leeds Combined Court Centre Mediation Scheme: Report for the Lord Chancellor’s Department on the operation of the scheme 1 July 2000 – 31 August 2001”
What is it about?
In 2000, the Lord Chancellor’s Department (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs, or DCA) established a pilot mediation scheme in Leeds Combined Court Centre. The scheme was operated in conjunction with The Law Society (Yorkshire and Northeast Regional Office) and the Association of Northern Mediators. A set scale of mediator fees was arranged, ranging from £125 to £500 per party.
Who did it?
The pilot mediation scheme was evaluated during its first phase of operation in July 2000 to September 2001. The research was carried out by Barbara Colledge of Leeds Metropolitan University, and published in September 2001.
The research involved examining:
- data from The Law Society on mediation requests
- questionnaire feedback from parties and mediators
- comparative secondary research on mediation trends nationally
It should be noted that only fourteen questionnaires were returned, relating to only seven mediations. The author warns that as a result of the small sample, only tentative conclusions can be given.
Key findings
The research found that:
- The scheme received 19 enquiries in the studied period of just over one year.
- Of these, 15 mediations were held and four enquiries did not proceed to mediation.
- Users did not appear to consider the cost of the scheme as prohibitive; mediation fees were considered reasonable.
- Nearly all disputes involved contractual issues; one involved medical negligence.
- The values of claims were mostly in the region of £15–100K, with one in the £5–15K range and two above £100K.
- Four of the seven mediations where questionnaires were returned had settled; giving a 57% mediation settlement rate.
- Where mediation failed, some parties considered the mediation to have been valuable, for example, in assisting them to define and narrow the issues or in establishing a framework within which settlement could subsequently be reached.
- All parties but one said they would consider using mediation again.
- In six out of eight cases parties thought mediation had saved them money.
The author makes the following recommendations:
- More detailed information about the process should be given to parties in advance. During the pilot only a brochure was used, and more needs to be done to communicate the benefits of mediation.
- Mediation should be brought in much earlier; timing the invitation to mediate at the allocation questionnaire stage is too late for many cases.
- Data collection on mediation appointments and mediated outcomes, and the method of collecting feedback from parties, should be improved.
- There should be further analysis of parties’ decision not to use mediation – for example, the impact of perceived cost or the nature of the dispute.
