Few would disagree that the use of mediation to resolve disputes has brought dramatic savings of time and costs, which would otherwise have been expended in court actions or arbitrations. The emphasis placed on the need to consider mediation as part of the Woolf reforms has also helped further its use. Although mediation's rise in the firmament of dispute resolution is to be celebrated, the recent decision in Shimyama Shokusan Company ft Others vs Danovo may have gone too far, in that it appears to suggest that a crucial aspect of mediation - the voluntary nature of the process -may be of less importance than other factors. Is this really correct?
展开▼
