Request a callback

If you want to discuss a particular service or need help, call us on 02476 231000.

Courts Can Force Parties to Attend ADR?

Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416

The case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, decided by the Court of Appeal on 29 November 2023, marks a significant development in the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), also called Non-Court Dispute Resolution. The court’s ruling in this case has reinforced the judiciary’s power to compel parties to engage in ADR, even when one party is unwilling to participate voluntarily. This article provides an objective analysis of the decision, focusing on the legal principles involved and the implications for future civil litigation.

Background of the Case

The dispute in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council arose from a disagreement over a planning decision made by the Council. The claimant, Mr Churchill, sought to challenge the decision through judicial review. During the course of the proceedings, the question of whether the parties should engage in ADR was raised. Mr Churchill was opposed to participating in mediation, believing it would not be fruitful. The Council, on the other hand, was willing to explore ADR to resolve the dispute.

The lower court had encouraged ADR but did not issue an order compelling the parties to participate. The case ultimately proceeded through the courts without the involvement of ADR, leading to a full hearing. After the decision at first instance, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which took the opportunity to address the issue of whether courts have the authority to compel parties to engage in ADR.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held that courts have the power to order parties to participate in ADR, even when one party is unwilling. This ruling is based on the overarching principle that ADR can play a crucial role in the efficient resolution of disputes and that the court has a duty to actively manage cases in a way that promotes the use of ADR where appropriate.

The court referred to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly the provisions related to the court’s case management powers. Under CPR 1.4, the court is required to “encourage the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate, and facilitate the use of such procedure.” The Court of Appeal interpreted this as not merely an encouragement but as conferring a power to compel ADR where it is in the interests of justice.

Legal Principles Established

The judgment in Churchill reinforces several key legal principles:

  1. Judicial Discretion in ADR: The decision clarifies that judges have wide discretion to order ADR, even against the wishes of one or more parties. This is a significant assertion of judicial authority in the context of case management.
  2. Obligation to Consider ADR: Parties to litigation are under an obligation to seriously consider ADR as part of their duty to engage in the litigation process in good faith. A refusal to participate in ADR may now carry greater risks, including adverse costs consequences.
  3. Proportionality and Justice: The Court of Appeal emphasised that the decision to compel ADR must be proportionate and in line with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly. This includes considering the nature of the dispute, the costs involved, and the potential for ADR to bring about a quicker and more cost-effective resolution.

Implications for Civil Litigation

The ruling in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council is likely to have far-reaching implications for civil litigation in England and Wales.

  • Increased Use of ADR: The decision may lead to a rise in the use of ADR, as parties recognise that courts are willing to compel participation. This could help reduce the burden on the courts by encouraging settlements before cases reach trial.
  • Costs Consequences: The case highlights the potential costs consequences of refusing ADR. Parties may face adverse costs orders if they unreasonably refuse to participate in ADR when ordered by the court.
  • Case Management Practices: The judgment reinforces the role of case management in promoting ADR. Judges are likely to become more proactive in identifying cases where ADR could be beneficial and in making orders to that effect.

Wrapping up

The decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council underscores the evolving role of ADR in the English legal system. By affirming the court’s power to compel parties to engage in ADR, the Court of Appeal has set a precedent that could reshape the approach to dispute resolution in civil litigation. This ruling serves as a reminder to litigants and their advisers of the importance of considering ADR at all stages of the litigation process, not merely as an option, but as a potential requirement enforced by the courts.

If you require legal advice concerning a civil dispute, please call our office today on 02476 231000 or email enquiries@askewslegal.co

Please note that this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.