Is that not horrific?: or "You have been warned"!: Burchell v. Bullard and implications for English construction law

In recent times, the cost of litigation has emerged as a serious issue in construction law. This paper examines the approach adopted by the English Courts in the light of recent reforms to the civil justice system and important case law. Important legal decisions indicate a change in judicial attitudes to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which was previously thought to be unenforceable by reason of uncertainty until very recently. This paper looks at the development of so-called "ADR law" in the English courts and discusses policy issues behind the recent case of Burchell v. Bullard. The paper concludes that although the English Courts will not impose ADR on unwilling parties, draconian cost sanctions await those who unreasonably reject ADR before proceeding to trial. Guidance is given on the tricky legal issue of how to ascertain whether a refusal is reasonable or unreasonable by exploring recently decided cases. The in-depth. examination of Burchell v. Bullard gives an insight into how the judiciary approach perplexing questions of reasonableness in cases where a verdict of "unreasonable rejection" can have catastrophic cost implications for litigants.