Today is the third part of our blog series on alternative dispute resolution. The two previous posts have looked at mediation in general and what types of disputes are suitable for mediation.

In this post we will be looking at arbitration, which will be continued in next week’s post when the focus will be on the type of disputes commonly solved through arbitration.

What is arbitration?

Arbitration is similar to mediation but is a more formal dispute resolution process, where the decision is normally considered as binding without the need to seek approval from a court.

The use of arbitration has traditionally been most prominent in international commercial law disputes, which have involved at least two companies. Although it still serves this purpose, it is increasingly applied in employment and family law disputes.

In most instances the parties to a dispute will have agreed in advance to solve any matter through arbitration. Arbitration is a voluntary process and both parties must agree to it. The arbitrator(s) are usually specialists within the relevant area of law and are picked by the disputing parties.

The arbitrators’ expertise is often considered to be one of the main advantages of the process. The process and the decision, or award, are carried out behind closed doors. This is different from a court process, where the public has a greater insight into the proceedings.

Next week’s post will focus on the type of disputes that are often solved through arbitration.

Have you had any experience of arbitration?

Related posts:

Arbitration now available to divorcing couples

Family law arbitration drive launched in UK

Supreme Court ruling confirms London as leading centre for international arbitration

More on arbitration:

Contact Law

Contact Law – Arbitration agreement

ACAS

This development comes only days after Brooks’ appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, which concerns the ‘culture, practice and ethics of the press’.

The decision was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is overseen by Keir Starmer QC, the Director of public prosecutions. The CPS announced the charges in a televised statement, in the interests of “transparency and accountability”.

Alison Levitt QC, Starmer’s principal legal advisor, said that charges were justified as there was a realistic prospect of conviction, and that the prosecution would be in the public interest.

Brooks commented: “I am baffled by the decision to charge me.” She added that she found the decision to charge “unjust and weak”.

Five other people associated with News International and Brooks have been charged as part of the conspiracy, including Brooks’ husband Charles; her chauffeur, Paul Edwards; News International’s head of security, Mark Hanna; her former personal assistant, Cheryl Carter; and security consultant, Daryl Jorsling.

It is alleged that, in July last year, Brooks tried to conceal evidence from the detectives investigating alleged phone hacking and corruption of public officials, associated with the News of the World.

For example, Brooks has been charged, along with Carter, of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International. Additionally, along with her husband, Hanna, Edwards and Jorsling, Brooks is charged with attempting to conceal documents and electronic equipment from the police.

All six persons charged are to appear for an initial hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on June 13th. Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence and defendants must be tried before a jury in a crown court. The maximum sentence upon conviction is life imprisonment. However, the usual sentence for this offence is between four and 18 months in jail.

Related news stories:

Guardian

Sky

The wife, 54-year-old teacher Nikki Savva, told the court that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the pair had slept in separate bedrooms for the past eight years.

The husband claimed that the wife was mentally unstable when she filed the divorce papers and that she had been encouraged by her family and solicitors to do so. He told the court, “I have not exhibited unreasonable behaviour… I accept my marriage has temporarily broken down, but it is not permanently broken down.

My wife has suffered a breakdown… she must be ill otherwise she wouldn’t have said these things… she’s confused.”

The wife told the media that she considered herself as divorced and that her husband had made her life difficult by turning her statements around to hurt her. Her former husband announced that he intends to continue his legal battle, “Once the process of divorce starts it is very difficult to stop. It is a shame that the system will destroy a marriage for a silly reason.

Irretrievable breakdown is very subjective. One judge in court on one day can make a decision which can relate to half of somebody’s life and will cause irreparable damage to the parties. It affects society.”

The court has recognised the wife’s wish to divorce and has relied on her account of events. The husband is still resisting his wife’s decision and she has said that he is in denial and is refusing to accept the outcome of the proceedings.

It is not uncommon for divorces to be contested. However, the process is usually less cumbersome if the parties can agree. This is particularly true if there are children involved.

Have you had a difficult divorce?

Related posts:

Divorce is “the disease of the modern age” according to senior judge

Are divorces too easy to obtain?

Related news stories:

London Evening Standard

Daily Mail

Princess Cruise Lines is owned by troubled global cruise firm, Carnival Corporation. Carnival also owns the operating company of the Costa Concordia liner, which ran aground on the coast of Tuscany earlier this year causing some fatalities.

Vasquez had set out from the small town of Rio Hato on the 24^th of February. He was in a three-metre-long boat with two male companions, and they spent the night fishing. However, the boat’s motor broke down during their return to shore and they drifted for 16 days before the men spotted the cruise liner, the Star Princess.

Unfortunately, the liner did not stop and rescue them, although Vasquez says they signalled for help.

Two American passengers on board the cruise liner, who were using bird-spotting scopes at the time, saw the stricken boat and thought the men were waving a red sweater. The passengers say they then informed a Princess Cruises sales representative and showed him the view through the scope.

The company say that the liner’s Captain was not told of the incident. Nevertheless, the two passengers insist they were assured by the representative that the crew would be alerted to the castaways.

Vazquez’s two friends later died of thirst, and he was only spared thanks to a sudden rainstorm. He was eventually picked up near the Galapagos Islands, more than 600 miles away from his home port.

Part VII (High Seas) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), article 98, states that other ships are required to go to the aid of vessels in distress. The master of a ship is required to: “render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, insofar as such action may reasonably be expected of him”.

Related news stories:

BBC

Telegraph

It will run for about 30 minutes and will cover:

• Internet usage statistics
• How to get the most from your legal website, including;
• SEO strategies and techniques
• Website design principles
• Why content is so important for converting visitors
• A short Q&A session

For more information and to register, please visit www.lawyermarketinguk.co.uk/firmsite-webinars

Places are limited to ensure we have an appropriate amount of interaction with attendees, so if you’re interested please register now. You will receive a reminder email 15 minutes before the webinar starts.

Of course, good lawyers will always put their clients’ needs first, but Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger says the time has come for reform.

Speaking to the Association of Costs Lawyers, specialist practitioners who work specifically on assessing legal fees, he criticised the current fees structure as penalising “the able, those with greater professional knowledge and skill, as they will tend to work at a more efficient rate.”

He went on to draw comparisons between legal fees and the British manufacturing industry. He opined that the reason for the latter’s decline was that British companies charged “cost plus” rather than the market value charged in Germany and the US.

Lord Neuberger has been outspoken on legal fees before. In February he criticised a £74,000 legal bill that had been run up in a simple case involving an injured plumber where the award was just £12,750.

Today some progressive law firms already offer fixed fees for standardised procedures such as uncontested divorces, drafting wills or undertaking probate. Conveyancing hasn’t been conducted on an hourly rate for many years.

If Lord Neuberger’s recommendations are taken to heart, this could soon be extended to other areas of the law.

It is difficult, however, to imagine it truly applying to litigation. Complex cases are hard even for top lawyers to predict and often a case that has dragged on for years could just as easily settle in days. In these cases at least, the hourly rate is probably here to stay for the time being.

Related stories:

Telegraph

Arnold was in her car in a queue of traffic on Monday when she saw the occupant of the car in front throw a plastic bottle out of the window.

The Radio 4 newsreader “got cross” and promptly exited her vehicle, picked up the bottle, and lobbed it back through the window of the litter bug’s car.

Fortunately there was no verbal exchange, and the plastic bottle was not thrown out again. Arnold later wrote about her experience on Twitter. She was overwhelmed with support from colleagues and members of the public.

She said that she only wanted to make the litter bug embarrassed about their action, and she was not trying to hit them with the bottle.

Arnold, who was chair of the Youth Court in Tottenham for some years, said she would confront litter-bugs again: “I won’t go looking for it but, if I see a blatant disregard for the law and it’s easy to do something about it, then I will.”

Throwing litter from a vehicle onto the highway is a littering offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If a citizen observes someone littering in this way, they can note the registration number of the vehicle, and inform the police or local authority.

Littering is a criminal offence and a convicted person can be fined up to £2,500. However, it has proved challenging to convict people who throw litter out of cars, due to the difficulty in establishing which person in a car threw the rubbish.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, is supporting plans to make car owners legally responsible if their passengers throw litter. Local authorities in London now have the power to issue a £100 civil penalty notice against the registered keeper of a vehicle, regardless of which occupant caused the offence. Spelman wants to extend these regulations to the rest of England.

Related stories:

Telegraph

Daily Mail

The Prison Officers Association (POA) held protest meetings at all jails for members who ceased working. Only minimum cover was provided for inmates, who were fed but left locked in their cells.

The Coalition wants the retirement age for public sector workers to rise from 65 to 68, even for designated essential services such as prison warders. Conversely, the POA argues their job is so physically demanding it is unrealistic to expect officers to perform their duties at the higher age limit.

The chairman of the POA, PJ McParlin, commented: “We have thousands of assaults every single year that my members have to intervene with and respond to.

“We won’t be retiring with dignity from service; my members will be dying in service.”

Prison officers In England and Wales are not permitted to go on strike, although the POA insisted they were acting within the law. However, a Treasury solicitor warned them that ministers considered the protest meetings to be a form of industrial action, and an injunction would be sought if they continued.

The national executive of the POA responded to the threat of a court-order by telling its members to return to work by lunchtime.  The union’s general secretary, Steve Gillan, said: “We’re extremely proud of our members for taking the action that they did to highlight the coalition government’s attitude towards prison officers.”

Other public sector workers demonstrated their opposition to the new pension age yesterday, such as off-duty policemen, immigration officers and National Health Service workers.

However, the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, said the action of the unions involved was ‘disappointing’. He maintained there would be no further talks with representatives over the Government’s plans for pensions.

Related information:

BBC

The speech contained a range of measures, including the Government’s intention to reform the House of Lords and implement changes to family law. There was little mention of the weak financial climate but the Prime Minister, David Cameron, subsequently stressed in the House of Commons that restoring the British economy remained the Government’s priority.

“Let me say exactly what this Queen’s Speech is about. It is about a government taking the tough, long-term decisions to restore our country to strength. Dealing with the deficit, rebalancing the economy and building a society that rewards people who work hard and do the right thing.”

The leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband, said that his party welcomed a more flexible parental leave system. However, Miliband found it disappointing that the Government had not put forth an agenda aimed at tackling issues such as youth unemployment. “No change, no hope – that is the real message this Queen’s Speech.”

Intended changes to the House of Lords will be amongst the most controversial reforms as they seek to create a more democratic house, where the majority of members are elected. Many conservative Tories have publically announced their disapproval of such plans.

Within the area of family law, the Queen’s Speech highlighted that the Government intends to speed up court processes for adoption and care cases. Moreover, changes will be implemented to ensure that in case of a parental split, more effort is made to ensure that any children keep in contact with both parents.

The Government has been widely criticised for failing to tackle the high unemployment rate and for imposing to deep cuts. The public’s discontent was reflected in last week’s council elections where both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats lost seats.

How have you been affected by the Government’s cuts?

Related posts:

More employment law reforms to affect workers and businesses

Government rethinks child benefit cuts

Continued controversy over Government’s charity tax relief plans

Related news stories:

BBC

BBC – Queen’s Speech at a glance

HuffingtonPost

The case involves a young London couple, 19-year-old Chana al-Alas and 22-year-old Rohan Wray, who had their first baby boy, Jayden, when the mother was aged 16 years. The baby was taken to hospital at the age of 18 weeks, due to his deteriorating condition, and had multi-skeletal scans at two medical centres. These found multiple fractures in his body.

Unfortunately, the baby died soon after from a fractured skull, which had caused brain damage and swelling. It was not until after Jayden’s death that the paediatric pathologist found that the baby was suffering from severe rickets.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute the couple with causing the death of their baby, notwithstanding the post-mortem diagnosis. Additionally, while the court case was proceeding, the couple’s new daughter was taken away from them after delivery and put into care.

Criminal charges against the parents were dropped late last year, after expert witnesses were unable to agree on the cause of Jayden’s death. But the couple’s local authority, Islington, then pursued a civil action against them for causing the injury which led to the child’s death.

The couple had their second child, Jayda, returned to them this April, when the family court judge, Mrs Justice Theis, finally cleared them of all responsibility for their son’s death. She said that the two London hospitals involved had provided ‘sub-optimal’ care for Jayden.

Several factors have meant that there has been an increase in cases of rickets in UK children in recent years, including poor diet and a lack of exposure to sunlight. The family court judge concluded that further research should be conducted on the impact of rickets on babies aged six months and under.

Related story:

Guardian

BBC