Exploring alternative dispute resolution in administrative matters
⚖️ Exploring Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Administrative Matters (UK)
I. Introduction to ADR in Administrative Law
In administrative law, disputes often arise between citizens and public bodies. Traditionally, such disputes were resolved through judicial review. However, courts increasingly encourage the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve conflicts more efficiently and cost-effectively.
II. What is ADR in the Administrative Context?
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) includes various methods of resolving disputes without full court proceedings. In administrative law, common ADR mechanisms include:
Negotiation
Mediation
Ombudsman schemes
Arbitration (less common in pure administrative law)
Internal complaints procedures
🎯 Objectives of ADR in Public Law:
Reduce court burden
Resolve disputes faster and more flexibly
Encourage participation and dialogue
Foster better relationships between the citizen and state
Promote cost-effectiveness
III. Key Cases on ADR in Administrative Law
Here are more than four key cases where UK courts addressed the role or use of ADR in administrative disputes.
1. R (Cowl & Others) v. Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935
📝 Facts:
A group of residents challenged a local authority’s decision to close a care home.
The residents filed for judicial review without attempting to resolve the matter through mediation.
❓ Issue:
Should judicial review proceed if parties have not attempted ADR?
⚖️ Holding:
Lord Woolf (Master of the Rolls) strongly criticized the failure to explore ADR before resorting to litigation.
The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings, urging both parties to pursue mediation or negotiation.
📌 Importance:
This is the leading case promoting the use of ADR in administrative law.
Lord Woolf emphasized that public authorities have a duty to consider ADR seriously before resorting to court.
Opened the door for courts to sanction parties who unreasonably refuse ADR.
2. R (on the application of Z) v. Hackney London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 2291 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
A mother challenged the Council's failure to provide accommodation under the Children Act 1989.
❓ Issue:
Whether the court should intervene immediately or encourage internal resolution through complaints or dialogue.
⚖️ Holding:
The High Court held that the complaints procedure within the Council should be exhausted before bringing a judicial review claim.
📌 Importance:
Demonstrated judicial preference for internal administrative remedies as a form of ADR before litigation.
Reaffirmed the principle of proportionality—not all issues merit immediate court intervention.
3. Anufrijeva v. Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406
📝 Facts:
The claimant, an asylum seeker, challenged the council's failure to inform her of changes to her housing benefit.
❓ Issue:
Whether the case should proceed to court or could have been resolved through communication and administrative clarification.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court of Appeal stressed that many administrative disputes arise from miscommunication and could be better handled outside litigation.
The case advanced the idea that ADR mechanisms like clarification, internal review, or ombudsman referral are viable.
📌 Importance:
Not a traditional ADR case, but reinforces the importance of avoiding adversarial processes when administrative tools can resolve disputes informally.
4. R (Bradley & Others) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 36
📝 Facts:
A group of pensioners challenged the government's failure to act on findings by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
❓ Issue:
What is the legal status of Ombudsman findings in administrative disputes?
⚖️ Holding:
The Court of Appeal held that Ombudsman recommendations are not binding, but public authorities must provide cogent reasons for rejecting them.
📌 Importance:
Confirmed the importance of Ombudsman schemes in resolving disputes without litigation.
Provided a framework for how non-judicial oversight mechanisms can influence administrative decisions.
5. R (on the application of Medway Council) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
Medway Council opposed the government’s decision to allow an airport development and sought judicial review.
❓ Issue:
Whether the claim should proceed or whether the dispute should first undergo negotiation or consultation.
⚖️ Holding:
The court noted that prior engagement and consultation could have prevented the dispute from escalating.
While the claim proceeded, the judgment encouraged ADR mechanisms as part of administrative good practice.
📌 Importance:
Highlights the administrative principle that public engagement and consultation are forms of preventative ADR.
Encourages authorities to build dialogue into decision-making processes.
6. R (on the application of LH) v. Independent Adjudicator [2005] EWHC 1800 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
The claimant challenged a decision about exclusion from school under the Education Act.
He bypassed the independent adjudicator and went straight to court.
❓ Issue:
Must internal or independent appeal mechanisms be exhausted before applying for judicial review?
⚖️ Holding:
The court refused judicial review, noting that the claimant had failed to use available administrative resolution routes.
📌 Importance:
Confirms the principle that courts will expect parties to exhaust ADR or alternative routes before approaching the judiciary.
Reinforces the hierarchy of dispute resolution in public law.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | ADR Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Cowl v. Plymouth City Council | Skipping mediation in care home closure dispute | Court urged ADR use; failure criticized |
| Z v. Hackney Council | Accommodation for child under public duty | Complaints procedure preferred over litigation |
| Anufrijeva v. Southwark LBC | Poor communication and housing benefits | Court stressed importance of dialogue over litigation |
| Bradley v. Secretary of State | Ombudsman ignored by government | Ombudsman reports must be taken seriously |
| Medway Council v. SoS Transport | Judicial review of planning decision | Consultation and engagement as alternative paths |
| LH v. Independent Adjudicator | School exclusion dispute | Must exhaust adjudicative and administrative procedures first |
V. Conclusion
UK administrative law increasingly emphasizes alternative dispute resolution to handle conflicts between citizens and public authorities. Courts support ADR for being:
More efficient and flexible
Less adversarial
Better at preserving ongoing relationships
Aligned with proportionality and good governance
Judicial review remains available, but only as a last resort, after ADR or internal remedies have been explored and exhausted.
RELATED Blog
0 comments