End Notes 1 Concerns expressed in more detail in a paper written by the author in 2011 “What Good is Evaluation” see http://www.roydenhindle.co.nz/documents/Hindle-articleWHAT-GOOD-IS-EVALUATION.pdf (last accessed 2/5/17). 2 That is, the point at which the case has its best prospects for settlement. 3 Neutral Evaluation: An ADR Technique Whose Time Has Come at http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/neutral-evaluation-an-adr-technique-whose-time-has-come.html (last accessed 2/5/17). 4 An objective that may well backfire from time to time! 5 It is difficult to see why a party which fears that its position has weaknesses would want to engage in a neutral evaluation that will be transparent to the opposing party. 6 This idea is better articulated in Neutral Evaluation: an ADR Technique Whose Time Has Come, supra note 3. 7 Of course, there is the possibility of a Judicial Settlement Conference in New Zealand, which may or may not include an element of neutral assessment. 8 For example, the UK Civil Procedure Rules give the Court power to convene an ENE hearing, and Neutral Evaluation is also provided for in jurisdictions such as the Northern District of California, the District of Vermont and Orange County, California. 9 See https://adraccess.wordpress.com/early-neutral-evaluation/ (last accessed 2 May 2017) 10 The NZDRC and BDT offers fully developed forms of agreement to engage in neutral evaluation – see www.nzdrc.co.nz and www.buildingdisputestribunal.co.nz.
About the Author
Arbitrator, Adjudicator and Mediator at Bankside Chambers, Auckland. Royden a Fellow (Arbitration) of AMINZ, and is currently also serving as both Vice President and the Director of Professional Studies for the Institute. He is on the NZDRC, BDT, FDRC and NZIAC Panels of Arbitrators, Mediators, Adjudicators, and Evaluators. Royden also teaches in Dispute Resolution at AUT.
To request the appointment of Royden, please contact: [email protected]