Mr. Justice Bernard Barton:

One of the proposals considered in the report relating to this issue was that the period of limitation or the running of time should be paused if and when litigants or potential litigants engage in the alternative resolution process. One of the objectives of the report is to encourage people to consider mediation and go to alternative resolution means of resolving their issues. Unfortunately, that did not find favour with the review. I do not know why that is the case. We already have it in our law. In the personal injury sphere, when a person who goes to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, time stops, by statute, until the person comes out of PIAB. The person must then decide whether to accept the award or go on. In the meantime, time is not running against the person. I do not doubt that there is a genuine desire to encourage people to consider alternative dispute resolution, especially in cases that are fairly open and shut and might lead to an offer of amends quite quickly. The question of pausing the statute if people engage in an alternative resolution should be revisited. We just has to specify what that period would be. It would have to be a reasonable period. We do not want it to go back to being six years. It would have to be a reasonable extension but it is something the committee should reconsider as it would encourage people in this regard. Solicitors already have a statutory duty to advise their clients. It is not necessary to put this into the proposed Bill.

There is already a statutory obligation to say to a client, "Listen, you should look at this". To put that into the Bill might encourage more people to take that up.