Edward Fox of Fee Langstone looks at how compulsory mediation, under Section 145 of the Trusts Act 2019, allows the Court to order unwilling parties in trust disputes to participate in alternative dispute resolution, provided the dispute qualifies as an "internal matter." While it undermines the voluntary nature of mediation, this power has proven to be an effective tool, with high settlement rates even in cases where mediation was compelled, making it a valuable resource for resolving trust-related disputes.
Read MoreMediation is a form of Negotiated Dispute Resolution (ADR), which involves a process of structured ‘without prejudice’ negotiation facilitated by an impartial third party known as a ‘mediator’. The aim is to produce a settlement of the dispute that is acceptable to both parties, and the process enables them to retain control over whether or not they wish to settle, and on what terms. Click here for the link to download the guide created by Nicola Gare of HFW:
https://www.hfw.com/insights/client-guide-making-the-most-of-mediation/
Read MoreA recent Irish High Court decision reduced a costs award. This reduction occurred because the plaintiffs’ solicitor failed to comply with the statutory obligation to advise about mediation before commencing proceedings. An English court has also recently imposed a greater reduction on recoverable costs arising from a party’s refusal to consider mediation. Gearoid Carey and Gerard Kelly, partners at Mason Hayes & Curran, examine this decision in the context of an apparent greater judicial willingness to get parties to mediate or else suffer potential cost consequences.
https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/beware-of-not-mediating-a-dispute#page=1
Read MoreSam Dorne of the NZ Dispute Resolution Centre looks at why in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that courts can lawfully order parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), overturning a previous interpretation of the Halsey decision that suggested otherwise. This landmark judgment underscores that skipping ADR may have serious cost consequences, reinforcing the principle that parties should attempt settlement before resorting to litigation.
https://nzdrc.co.nz/failing-to-engage-in-adr-could-leave-you-tied-up-in-knots/
Read MoreA recent Court of Appeal decision in England ruled that parties can be compelled to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), departing from the traditional view that ADR is purely voluntary. While this decision raises questions about the future of compulsory ADR in Scotland, no similar requirement currently exists, though the ruling may influence future procedural developments.
Read MorePhoebe Price of UK law firm Browne Jacobson, looks at how the Court of Appeal's decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council allows courts to mandate parties to engage in non-court dispute resolution processes, such as negotiation, mediation, or internal complaints procedures, before taking legal action. This ruling provides local authorities with an opportunity to resolve low-value disputes more efficiently and cost-effectively by using their internal processes to address issues before resorting to litigation.
Read MoreFrancesca Muscutt and Millie Bailey of DAC Beachcroft look at the landmark decision, James Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, where the Court of Appeal has ruled that the courts can stay proceedings and order parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), even where one or both parties have expressed an unwillingness to engage in the process.
The benefits of ADR have long been recognised. It is an efficient mechanism for resolving disputes quickly, privately and usually far more cheaply than taking a case to trial. The Pre-action Protocol for Professional Negligence (which covers claims against accountants and auditors) requires the parties to consider ADR before commencing court proceedings. The Court of Appeal decision in Churchill goes further by underscoring the importance of ADR even once proceedings are underway. The courts have the power to stay the proceedings and compel the parties to engage in ADR and there is an expectation this power will be exercised.
Read MoreRebecca Attree of IPOS Mediation explains how a "human conscious" organisation fosters awareness of its societal role, prioritising ethics, culture, and stakeholder well-being over hierarchical control. By integrating self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose, such organisations can enhance workplace harmony, resolve conflicts more effectively through mediation, and ultimately drive both human and business success.
https://mediate.co.uk/blog/building-human-conscious-organisations/
Read MoreGowling WLG look at the recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil confirming that courts in England and Wales can now lawfully compel parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, overturning the longstanding view from Halsey v Milton Keynes. This marks a shift toward a more proactive judicial stance on ADR, with courts emphasizing its role in achieving fair, cost-effective resolutions and signaling potential cost consequences for parties who unreasonably refuse to participate.
Read MoreThe Court of Appeal in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council held that courts can lawfully order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), as long as it does not infringe on their right to a fair trial and is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While the decision did not mandate ADR in this case, it marks a significant shift by affirming judicial discretion to require ADR, potentially leading to more efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution.
Read MorePeter Allchorne and Emma Fuller of DAC Beachcroft, look into the UK case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, where the Court of Appeal ruled that courts can order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, provided it does not impair their right to a judicial hearing and is proportionate. This decision opens the door for the courts to mandate ADR before trial, potentially leading to cost implications and further clarification on what constitutes adequate engagement with the process.
Read MoreJohn Lande of Indisputably looks at how courts can significantly improve mediation outcomes—at virtually no cost—by better preparing parties through accessible resources, guidance, and clear rules on court websites. He highlights the systemic nature of courts as dispute resolution hubs and presents a collection of practical tools, rules, and examples to help parties, mediators, and administrators enhance pre-mediation preparation.
Read MoreHerbert Smith Freehills partnered with the London Chamber of Arbitration and Mediation to conduct a survey that reveals broad support among dispute resolution professionals for some form of mandatory mediation in both litigation and arbitration, though opinions vary on its structure, timing, and appropriate case types. While most respondents agree that compulsory mediation can be effective, especially when paired with sanctions for non-compliance, they also emphasise the need for flexible implementation tailored to the nature and complexity of individual disputes.
Read MoreNicola Critchley of DWF looks at how the response to the Ministry of Justice’s proposal for automatic mediation in all Small Claims Track cases urges caution, warning that mandatory mediation could lead to unnecessary delays, increased costs, and inefficiencies—particularly where parties are already using effective ADR methods or require judicial decisions. It emphasises that while mediation has value, especially in disputes between unrepresented parties, justice would be better served by strengthening pre-action protocols, supporting voluntary mediation, and investing in judicial resources to reduce existing case backlogs.
Read MoreStevens & Bolton look at how mediation is increasingly endorsed by family lawyers and judges as a preferable alternative to litigation for resolving private law disputes, aiming to ease the burden on the overstretched family courts. With growing court backlogs and enhanced mediation options like shuttle and hybrid mediation, there is hope that more couples will choose these accessible, private solutions to resolve family issues efficiently.
Read MoreMia Levi of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution ("CPR") offers suggestions as to how parties can assess whether they should mediate, referring to the CPR's ADR Suitability Guide, and when they should mediate
https://www.mediate.com/articles/levi-commercial-disputes.cfm#bio
Read MoreDavid A Evans of IPOS Mediation explains how boardroom conflicts often arise from delayed communication and unresolved tensions, making early intervention crucial for maintaining a healthy work environment. An effective Chair plays a key role in fostering open debate, addressing conflicts proactively, and ensuring Board members uphold integrity and courage to act in the organization’s best interests.
https://my.newzapp.co.uk/t/view/1537946610/121956528
Read MoreNick Holborne looks at how, in a landmark move, the UK High Court has issued what is believed to be the first compulsory ADR order in a commercial case, requiring parties to engage in mediation with enforceable expectations for genuine participation. The order, praised for giving ADR "teeth," signals a shift toward making dispute resolution more cost-effective and reflects the court's existing power under CPR 3.1(m) to mandate such processes.
Read MoreHenrietta Jackson-Stops explores how the UK’s Civil Mediation Council supports the push for compulsory mediation, emphasising its high success rate and significant cost and time savings for litigants and the wider justice system. However, it raises concerns about the expectation that such mediation should be free or low-cost, arguing that investing in professional, regulated mediation is justified by its substantial long-term benefits.
Read More