The Grenfell fire tragedy of 14 June 2017 saw 72 people killed, including 18 children, in a building that was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council.
The victims of Grenfell lodged a civil claim at the High Court against the organisations alleging “failings separately and cumulatively led to or contributed to the disaster, including failings of their employees or agents, for which they are vicariously liable“. As well as claims of principal negligence against some defendants and claims of alleged ‘unlawful acts’ under the Human Rights Act.
The multi-party litigation consists of over 1,100 claimants ranging from Grenfell community members to the fire and police service. The claimants have been divided into different groups and represented by different law firms. The claim put forward by all claimants was predominately for:
- Personal injury and other loss and damage
- Pain, suffering, and loss of amenity
The 23 defendants in the case include the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council; Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management organisation; former London Fire Commissioner Dany Cotton: the Home Office; and the Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
Having a large number of claimants represented by different legal representatives is always going to have its challenges in litigation proceedings. One such issue, in this case, is a disagreement over whether an order for the proceedings to be put on hold (a stay) should be granted whilst a form of alternative dispute resolution is explored to resolve the whole or part of the case.
Alternative dispute resolution
The importance of ADR, however, was plain to see in a hearing held on 28 July 2022 in which Senior Master Fontaine handed a judgement for a stay of proceedings to be extended for a further 12 months. This was a situation where the groups of claimants were not in agreement as to whether the civil claim should be further put on hold in order for alternative dispute resolution to take place. In Senior Master Fontaine’s judgment on extending the stay, she described mediation as a “constructive and sensible manner of progressing the claims” over litigation in a complex case such as this.
Lord David Neuberger, the former president of the Supreme Court, is due to mediate between the claimants and defendants as well as Paul Van Zyl, a separate expert mediator, who will be counselling the claimants on what kind of restorative justice they want to see included in the mediation.
Alternative dispute resolution isn’t just a more financially viable option than taking proceedings to trial, it gives parties the chance to obtain answers and communicates with each other to explain the true extent to which the issues in the case have affected their lives.
Comment
In the case of Grenfell, alternative dispute resolution is needed not only for the victims to be able to express their concerns and have their voices heard but for the defendants to hear how such events really impact claimants in order for changes to be made going forward.
In the majority of other claims, however, whether the case is about disputed family inheritance, or sums due under a contract mediation or other forms of ADR also offers far more flexibility in finding solutions to problems parties face, than always expensive and risky litigation.
How can we help?
Kirria Hearn is a Trainee Solicitor in our expert Dispute Resolution Team.
For more information regarding the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kirria or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.