16.17There is an increasing emphasis upon forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) including mediation as a way both to prevent disputes reaching the Court of Protection and to bring about a speedier resolution to proceedings if they do. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 19. As noted in that chapter, the court has no power to require parties to engage in a form of ADR. We suggest, however, that, by analogy with the approach adopted in family proceedings,1Eg Mann v Mann [2014] EWHC 537 (Fam). an unreasonable failure to engage in ADR might give a basis for departure from the general rule.

16.18It is important that legal advisers are clear that case management directions must be complied with- even when it is another party who has been directed to take the steps in question. By way of analogy, in Re L (Case Management: Wasted Costs)2[2016] EWFC B8. HHJ Bellamy made wasted costs orders against all the legal representatives in a care case, finding that they were all negligent for the purpose of section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, so as to give rise to the power to make a wasted costs order. The local authority had failed to disclose relevant material and bore the brunt of the responsibility: but the other parties should have noticed this and were negligent in ‘failing to take pro-active steps in drawing the omission to the attention of the local authority and court.’ Given the express duty on all parties to ask the court to make directions if an issue arises ‘of which the court is unaware,3COPR Pr1.4(2)(a). and the duty on legal representatives to comply with the rules,4COPR Pr1.5(2)(a). it is entirely possible to imagine a similar approach being taken in the Court of Protection.