You may have caught the news a couple of months ago that the NSW government launched a discussion paper that proposing some reforms to how it managed the ADR system in that State. The discussion paper proposed amongst other things that lawyers be bound by statute to advise their clients about ADR and the establishment of an ADR directorate.  It said that the growth of the non-adversarial system, including ADR, was lacking strategic coordination and ADR services were being distributed on an “ad hoc” and piecemeal basis. It also said “There is currently no comprehensive and clear picture available of the full range of ADR suppliers.”

These proposals follow ADR reforms being considered in Victoria after a report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission was released in May 2008. The Commission recommended that more disputes be resolved before trial. Victoria is currently leading the way with such reforms and a much higher percentage of disputes are being submitted to ADR and often at a very early stage.

The NSW government, in its discussion paper, is encouraging collaborative law be applied to civil dispute cases and that a single Sydney International Arbitration Centre be established. It wants to enact some guiding principles for civil disputes and it is looking at enacting laws that will allow adverse cost orders to be made where these guiding principles are not adhered to by parties to a dispute.

What are your thoughts on this? We now have the National Mediator Accreditation System in place since 2009. What further reforms are needed?

Your comments and insights would be much appreciated.

Christopher Whitelaw