Which statement best describes the consequence of not engaging in ADR?

Which statement best describes the consequence of not engaging in ADR?

• A. The court may require additional costs to be paid for ADR.
• B. A costs sanction may be imposed on them at the conclusion of the proceedings.
• C. The other party is automatically granted relief.
• D. The case proceeds with a presumption of ADR completion.

Answer: (B)

Parties are expected to consider and engage in ADR to resolve disputes without going to trial. If a party unreasonably refuses to participate in ADR, the court has power to impose a costs sanction at the end of the proceedings. This means the party who refused ADR can be ordered to pay the other side’s costs (often reflecting that the refusal increased costs and delayed resolution). The purpose is to encourage genuine engagement with ADR and to deter unnecessary litigation. The other options don’t fit because there isn’t an automatic relief granted to the other party, there’s no presumption that ADR has been completed, and the sanction isn’t simply additional costs for ADR itself.

Parties are expected to consider and engage in ADR to resolve disputes without going to trial. If a party unreasonably refuses to participate in ADR, the court has power to impose a costs sanction at the end of the proceedings. This means the party who refused ADR can be ordered to pay the other side’s costs (often reflecting that the refusal increased costs and delayed resolution). The purpose is to encourage genuine engagement with ADR and to deter unnecessary litigation. The other options don’t fit because there isn’t an automatic relief granted to the other party, there’s no presumption that ADR has been completed, and the sanction isn’t simply additional costs for ADR itself.