The Court of Appeal has ruled that the courts can compel parties to engage in ADR as long as this does not deprive a party to litigation to the right to trial. Unity welcomes this as a step in the right direction. This will normally mean that the courts will stay proceedings and order mediation to take place and, of course, the court cannot require a party to spend the money on employing a private, non-court appointed mediator. In fact, the decision is quite fact specific. The case is Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County B.C. [2023] EWCA 1416. Mr Churchill complained about the encroachment of Japanese Knotweed from the Council’s land. He commenced proceedings without taking up the Council’s complaints procedure. One can see why where a claimant has failed to take up contractual or publicly recommended ADR, a court would order a stay. It seems more unlikely that this would happen in the cut and thrust of commercial litigation but, still, it is useful for the courts to have this power in its armoury.
Court rules that alternative dispute resolution is compulsory
