Further to the recent publication of the Leveson Report, “An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) is well placed to provide arbitral services to a newly created independent regulatory body. In his report published on 29 November 2012, Lord Justice Leveson proposed the use of arbitration as an “essential component” in resolving civil disputes involving the press and the establishment of an independent press regulatory body underpinned by statute, to replace the current self-regulated body the Press Complaints Commission. As an independent, not-for-profit, UK registered charity working in the public interest, CIArb appoints Arbitrators to solve disputes across the business community, using specialist Panels of experts with ‘high reputation and ability’ who can act as Arbitrators within a framework of independence, integrity and impartiality. With this immediate access to professional dispute resolvers of the calibre and standing required for such a high profile initiative, the newly created body could draw on the experience of a leading, global institution such as CIArb. CIArb would like to extend its support to an effective, cost-only arbitral process as part of a newly created regulatory body. The Rt Hon Sir Anthony Evans, FCIArb, C.Arb and panel member of CIArb’s Dispute Appointment Service (DAS) said: “I welcome this opportunity for an experienced arbitration body such as CIArb to demonstrate that Lord Justice Leveson`s aim of a specialist and independent body “striking out unmeritorious claims and quickly resolving the others” can readily be achieved by combining the established principles of arbitration with the flexible procedures permitted by the Arbitration Act 1996. “Existing procedures for appointing arbitrators and for administering the arbitrations can be adapted as necessary. Overall supervision by the Courts will ensure that procedures are fair to both parties and the outcome just. The result could be a major contribution to the development of arbitration as a primary method of dispute resolution, and to the governance of our society.”   For further information, please contact: Lucy Chakaodza Communications and PR Executive E: LChakaodza@ciarb.org T: 020 7421 7473

The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief because the trial court abused its discretion by incorrectly applying section 171.096(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code instead of applying 171.096(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Background In In re Lopez, 372 S.W. 3d 174 (June 8, 2012), survivors of a nursing home resident filed a demand for arbitration of survival and wrongful death claims against the nursing home arising out of allegedly negligent care. Even though the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitration be conducted in Victoria County, Texas, the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in front of a specific arbitrator in Travis County, Texas. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the survivors. The nursing home then filed an application in Victoria County to vacate the award. The survivors filed a motion to transfer venue to Travis County under section 171.096(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (TCPRC). The trial court denied the survivors’ motion to transfer venue, agreeing instead with the nursing home that section 171.096(b) of the TCPRC applied and Victoria County was the proper venue. The survivors petitioned for writ of mandamus. The court of appeals also denied relief. Supreme Court of Texas The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether section 171.096(b) or 171.096(c) applied. Looking to the Legislature’s choice of language in the statute, the Court noted that subsection (c)’s language, “has been held,” indicates that it applies when an arbitration hearing has already taken place. The language in subsection (b), “is to be held,” indicates that it applies when the parties have an agreement and an arbitration hearing has not yet taken place. The Court concluded that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by applying section 171.096(b) instead of 171.096(c) since an arbitration hearing had already been held. The Court also stated that its interpretation does not interfere with the parties’ ability to agree to venue provisions. However, in this case, the parties chose to disregard their previous contractual agreement. Because section 171.096(c) is a mandatory venue provision that the trial court failed to apply, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court (1) to vacate the previous order and (2) grant the survivors’ motion to transfer venue.  

A thesis for the Georgetown University Master of Arts in Conflict Management by Paul Charlton, B.A. titled “Indicators of success: an exploration of successful conflict management in U.S. hospital settings” can be found on the Georgetown University website. The paper examines the definition of success in managing healthcare conflicts. The paper divides conflict into four categories based on the parties involved and introduces a framework for analyzing dynamics of the different conflict management systems used in healthcare. The categories of parties involved include: patient-provider; provider-provider; provider-administration and patient-payer. Literature reviews and interviews with ten conflict management practitioners in the healthcare setting helped Mr. Charlton analyze the four categories and determine key features of the conflicts and the responses to conflict associated with them. The interviews explored “definitions of success, clarified training and research needs, and identified emerging trends in the field”. A summary of the paper states:Important trends in healthcare conflict management identified by the research include a shift away from interest-based negotiation models towards relationship-based approaches to conflict management; a reorientation towards prevention and early intervention, raising expectations that healthcare providers take the lead on conflict engagement and increasingly supplanting third-party intervention models; a push to include conflict management training in health professional schools; and utilization of a nested training-mentoring-communities of practice approach to developing healthcare providers’ conflict management skills. Mr. Charlton’s research includes the suggestions that positive benefit of conflict management in healthcare can be obtained by increasing collaboration between healthcare providers and ADR professionals on training design, integrating conflict management systems with Human Resources and leadership, and ensuring conflict management systems are visible and understood by staff.

  The American Bar Association (ABA) Guide to Dispute Resolution Processes is designed to educate members of the public about dispute resolution processes commonly used to resolve legal, community, school, public policy and many other types of disputes. You may download the Guide (for free) here.   “What Is Dispute Resolution? Dispute resolution is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a conflict, dispute or claim. Dispute resolution may also be referred to as alternative dispute resolution, appropriate dispute resolution, or ADR for short. Dispute resolution processes are alternatives to having a court (state or federal judge or jury) decide the dispute in a trial or other institutions decide the resolution of the case or contract. Dispute resolution processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including family, neighborhood, employment, business, housing, personal injury, consumer, and environmental disputes.” ~The American Bar Association (ABA) Guide to Dispute Resolution Processes