{"id":219907,"date":"2023-12-01T17:39:29","date_gmt":"2023-12-01T17:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=219907"},"modified":"2023-12-01T17:39:29","modified_gmt":"2023-12-01T17:39:29","slug":"court-of-appeal-rules-in-japanese-knotweed-case-that-courts-can-lawfully-stay-proceedings-for-parties-to-engage-in-adr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/court-of-appeal-rules-in-japanese-knotweed-case-that-courts-can-lawfully-stay-proceedings-for-parties-to-engage-in-adr\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Appeal rules in Japanese knotweed case that courts can lawfully stay proceedings for parties to engage in ADR"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

The court can lawfully stay proceedings or order parties to engage in non-court-based dispute resolution processes, the Court of Appeal ruled on Wednesday in a widely awaited verdict.\u00a0However in\u00a0Churchill v Merthyr Tydfill County Borough Council<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>Sir Geoffrey Vos declined an order to stay proceedings\u00a0in a claim concerning Japanese knotweed. The council\u2019s internal complaints procedure \u2018may not be the most appropriate process for an entrenched dispute of this kind\u2019 the\u00a0master of the rolls said.<\/p>\n

He said that though the judge would have stayed the claim in May 2022 \u2018had he been able to see this judgment\u2019, the case had moved on. He added: \u2018There is little point in doing so now, since nothing will be gained if a one-month stay were granted\u2019.<\/p>\n

The dispute centres on a Japanese knotweed nuisance claim brought against the Welsh local authority by James Churchill. It is alleged that the plant has spread from council land onto private property.\u00a0The council argued the claimant should have followed ADR options, including its internal complaints procedure, before pursuing legal action.<\/p>\n

The lower court dismissed the applications, but permission was granted to bring the case to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

The judgment found the judge in a lower court, who dismissed the council\u2019s stay application, was not bound by\u00a0Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004]. <\/em>The deputy district judge had referred to Halsey<\/em> when dismissing Merthyr Tydfill\u2019s stay application by stating he was bound to follow the statement that \u2018to oblige truly unwilling parties to refer their disputes to mediation would be to impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court\u2019.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Japanese<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In lead judgment, Vos, with whom Lady Chief Justice Carr and Lord Justice Birss agreed, said paragraphs nine to 10 of Halsey \u2018was not part of the essential reasoning\u2026and did not bind the judge to dismiss the council\u2019s application for the stay\u2019.<\/p>\n

Allowing the appeal in part, he said: \u2018The court can lawfully stay proceedings for, or order, the parties to engage in a non-court-based dispute resolution process provided that\u00a0the order made does not impair the very essence of the claimant\u2019s right to proceed to a judicial hearing, and is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost.\u2019<\/p>\n

The master of the rolls said factors including the form of ADR being considered and whether parties were legally represented or advised, and the \u2018nature of the process contemplated will be relevant\u2019 when\u00a0determining if a stay of proceedings or an order for ADR should be made.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n