Dispute resolution today is about choosing the most appropriate and cost-effective method of resolving a dispute. The range of such procedures is growing every day. In addition to the traditional alternatives to litigation such as arbitration and expert determination, the growing acceptance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by clients and lawyers alike in the wake of the carrot and stick approach embedded in the Woolf reforms has encouraged the development of various forms of ADR procedures by dispute resolution organisations and within industry sectors.
In theory, parties in dispute acting in accordance with the spirit of Woolf will co-operate fully in trying to secure a resolution of their dispute by the most efficient means possible. This should include a consideration of the procedures that might best assist them in reaching their goal. However, while the man-eating litigator is no longer de rigueur and many lawyers are happy to talk to their opponents in a sensible fashion, it remains a fact of life that in many cases the early stages of a contractual dispute, when the parties themselves have not yet reached the common position of becoming frustrated by the work involved in preparing a case and briefed by their lawyers as to the costs of taking an action to trial, is often not the best time to try to get them to agree on anything. Thus we come back to having to look at the contract to see if it provides anything useful in the way of guidance.
