Why Courts and Government Are Increasingly Promoting Mediation

Mediation is no longer being treated as a side route for the unusually cooperative. In England and Wales, it is being built more firmly into the civil justice system itself. The Ministry of Justice has said mediation should become an "essential part of the court process" for lower-value civil claims and a "standard step" in most small claims proceedings. HM Courts & Tribunals Service has already embedded automatic referral to mediation into parts of the county court money claims process.

That shift is not happening by accident. Courts, government, and the wider civil justice system are promoting mediation because litigation is expensive, court time is limited, and many disputes can be resolved earlier and more proportionately without a full hearing. The push towards mediation is therefore not just a cultural trend. It is a policy direction, a procedural development, and an increasingly visible part of how civil disputes are expected to be managed.

Pressure on the Court System Is a Major Driver

One of the clearest reasons mediation is being promoted more strongly is pressure on the civil courts. The Ministry of Justice's latest civil justice statistics say that in October to December 2025 the median time for a small claim to go from issue to trial was 36.1 weeks, while fast, intermediate and multi-track claims took 57.4 weeks. Earlier Ministry materials described specified money claims under £10,000 as taking, on average, more than a year to reach a hearing.

Those figures help explain why policymakers keep returning to early resolution. Delay does not just affect court administration. It affects claimants and defendants directly. Money stays unpaid, business relationships deteriorate, projects remain unfinished, and everyday disputes become harder to resolve simply because time passes. The government's own papers frame mediation as a way to reduce the burden on court users and free judicial time for cases that genuinely need a hearing.

The Ministry of Justice Has Made ADR a Policy Priority

The government's 2023 response to its consultation on increasing the use of mediation in the civil justice system is one of the clearest official statements of direction. In that response, the Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to integrate mediation as an "essential part of the court process" for lower-value civil claims and said it should become a "standard step" in the vast majority of small claims proceedings.

The same response explains why. The government said it wanted more disputes to be resolved before participants entered the "lengthy and stressful wait" for a hearing, and to reduce reliance on the "costly burden of litigation." That language matters because it shows mediation is being promoted not as a soft extra, but as a practical response to delay, cost, and proportionality.

In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS announced that parties in money claims up to £10,000 would be required to take part in a free one-hour mediation appointment through HMCTS' Small Claims Mediation Service. The announcement said the reform could free up about 5,000 judicial sitting days each year for judges to focus on cases less suited to mediation. Justice Minister Lord Bellamy KC was explicit about the rationale. He said successful mediation is "quicker and less stressful than court battles" and that embedding mediation into the court process would improve the experience of court users while freeing judges to focus on more complex cases.

The Civil Justice Council Helped Clear the Legal Path

A major institutional step came in 2021, when the Civil Justice Council published its report on compulsory ADR. The Judiciary's summary of that report said it concluded mandatory ADR is lawful and compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir Geoffrey Vos, then Master of the Rolls, responded by saying ADR should no longer be viewed as "alternative" but as "an integral part of the dispute resolution process."

That was a significant development. It meant the debate moved beyond whether mediation is merely desirable. The legal and policy question became whether courts could properly require engagement with it. The Civil Justice Council's answer was yes, provided the process is proportionate and does not remove the right to a judicial determination where one is still needed.

Churchill Confirmed That Courts Can Compel ADR

The key legal turning point is Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council. In 2023, the Court of Appeal confirmed that courts can lawfully stay proceedings for, or order participants to engage in, a non-court-based dispute resolution process, so long as the order does not impair the essence of the right to a fair trial, pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate.

That decision matters in practical terms because it strengthens judicial authority to push cases towards mediation. Courts are no longer limited to polite encouragement. They can require engagement with ADR where that is appropriate. The judgment also recognised the practical value of non-court dispute resolution, noting in general terms that mediation and similar processes are cheaper and quicker than court-based solutions.

The Rules Now Reflect That Shift

The Civil Procedure Rules were amended from 1 October 2024 to reflect this change. The overriding objective now expressly includes "promoting or using alternative dispute resolution." Active case management includes "ordering or encouraging the parties to use, and facilitating the use of," ADR. The rules also now state expressly that the court's case management powers include power to order the parties to engage in ADR.

That is an important signal. ADR is no longer sitting outside the framework of civil procedure as something optional and external. It is now embedded in the procedural architecture itself. The direction of travel is clear: parties are increasingly expected to take mediation seriously as part of responsible dispute resolution.

Small Claims Mediation Shows the Policy in Action

The strongest evidence that this is more than rhetoric is what has happened in practice. Practice Direction 51ZE provides for automatic referral to mediation in the small claims track pilot. It states that the pilot runs from 22 May 2024 to 21 May 2026 and applies to claims issued on or after 22 May 2024 within its scope. The rules also provide that, if the case reaches a final hearing, the court must consider whether any sanction is appropriate where a party failed to attend mediation.

HMCTS' 2024–25 annual report shows the scale of that change. It states that since 2024 all small claims money claims under £10,000 have been automatically referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service, and that during 2024–25 the service carried out over 39,000 mediations, with over 15,000 claims settling. That is why it is now accurate to say mediation is moving from optional, to expected, to in some settings required. The court system is no longer simply advising participants to think about mediation. It is building mediation into the route many claims already take.

Why Institutions Are Backing Mediation So Strongly

The policy reasons are consistent across the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS, the Civil Justice Council, and the courts.

Refusing Mediation Is Becoming Harder to Justify

Even before Churchill, the courts could penalise an unreasonable refusal to mediate in costs. That principle is classically associated with Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, and the current procedural environment makes the risk of refusal more obvious rather than less. The pre-action framework expects parties to consider ADR before proceedings are started, and the current small claims mediation pilot expressly allows non-attendance to be taken into account when the court considers sanction and conduct. The practical message is not that every case must settle. It is that refusing to engage with mediation now carries more procedural and strategic risk than it once did. Courts increasingly see sensible engagement with ADR as part of reasonable conduct in civil litigation.

Mediation Is Now Part of the Expected Pathway

For individuals and businesses involved in disputes, the practical implication is straightforward. Mediation is no longer a peripheral option. It is increasingly part of the expected pathway before a case reaches trial.

That does not mean every dispute is suitable for mediation, or that every mediation will settle. It does mean that courts, government, and HMCTS are all signalling the same thing: where a dispute can fairly and proportionately be resolved earlier, the system increasingly wants that to happen.

As mediation becomes more central to civil justice, professional mediators have a more important role in helping participants resolve disputes efficiently and avoid unnecessary litigation. For Mediation Chambers, that wider policy shift is not something external to the work. It is part of the environment in which civil and commercial disputes are now being managed.

Frequently Asked Questions