Mediation in the United Kingdom: From Alternative to Mainstream
For many years mediation was described as an “alternative” form of dispute resolution. That description is becoming increasingly inaccurate. In 2026, mediation is no longer sitting at the margins of the civil justice system; it is becoming an integral part of it.
The last three years have seen some of the most significant developments in mediation since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. The combined effect of judicial decisions, rule changes and government initiatives has fundamentally altered the position for litigants, lawyers and mediators alike.
The Churchill Revolution
The most significant development remains the Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.
For almost twenty years many practitioners operated on the basis that the courts could encourage mediation but could not compel parties to engage in it. Churchill changed that landscape. The Court of Appeal confirmed that courts have the power to stay proceedings or order parties to engage in a non-court-based dispute resolution process provided that the order is proportionate and does not deprive a party of its ultimate right to a judicial determination.
The significance of Churchill cannot be overstated. The question is no longer whether the courts may require parties to engage with mediation. The question is now when it will be appropriate for them to do so.
Mediation Embedded Within the CPR
The decision in Churchill was followed by amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules which came into force on 1 October 2024.
The overriding objective now expressly includes promoting and using alternative dispute resolution. The court’s case management powers have been expanded to include ordering parties to engage in ADR. Courts are also required to consider ADR when giving directions in fast track, intermediate track and multi-track cases. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with an ADR order or unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR may now be taken into account when costs are determined.
These changes represent more than procedural amendments. They signal a cultural shift within the civil justice system. Mediation is increasingly viewed as part of the ordinary litigation process rather than an optional add-on.
Mandatory Mediation Arrives
The government has also moved beyond encouragement and into implementation.
Mandatory mediation has been introduced for many County Court money claims under £10,000. Such claims are now routinely referred to the HMCTS Small Claims Mediation Service before progressing further through the court system. The pilot has already been expanded and there is continuing discussion about extending compulsory ADR principles more widely across civil litigation.
Whether one supports or opposes compulsory mediation, the direction of travel is clear. The justice system increasingly expects parties to attempt settlement before consuming valuable court resources.
A Growing Market
The mediation market itself continues to grow.
The latest CEDR Mediation Audit reported approximately 21,000 civil and commercial mediations annually, representing a substantial increase on previous surveys. Settlement rates remain consistently high, with the overwhelming majority of mediated disputes resolving either on the day of the mediation or shortly afterwards.
These figures reinforce what many practitioners have observed for some time. Businesses, insurers, professionals and private individuals are becoming increasingly comfortable with mediation as a means of resolving disputes.
Technology and Artificial Intelligence
Technology is also beginning to reshape the mediation landscape.
Remote mediation, once regarded as a temporary response to the pandemic, is now firmly established. Parties routinely participate from different locations, reducing cost and improving accessibility.
Artificial intelligence is also beginning to influence the sector. AI tools can assist with document review, chronology preparation, bundle analysis and summarisation of complex material. Whilst AI cannot replace the judgement, empathy and negotiation skills of an experienced mediator, it is likely to become an increasingly important tool in the mediator’s toolkit.
For mediators, the challenge is not whether AI will become part of dispute resolution practice, but how it can be used responsibly, ethically and effectively to support the mediation process whilst preserving the human skills at the heart of successful settlement.
Challenges Ahead
Despite these positive developments, significant challenges remain.
Questions continue regarding standards, accreditation and regulation. The mediation profession remains diverse, with practitioners coming from legal, commercial, surveying, engineering and other professional backgrounds. Whilst this diversity is one of mediation’s strengths, it also raises ongoing questions about consistency and quality assurance.
There is also a legitimate debate about the extent to which mediation should be integrated into the court system. Some fear that excessive institutionalisation risks undermining the voluntary and consensual nature of mediation. Others argue that greater judicial involvement is essential if the benefits of mediation are to be realised more widely.
A Personal Reflection: Growth Must Not Be Accompanied by Unnecessary Barriers
Having practised both as a barrister and mediator for many years, I have witnessed first-hand the transformation in attitudes towards mediation. What was once viewed by some litigators as a sign of weakness is now increasingly regarded as an essential part of effective dispute resolution.
The growth of mediation should be welcomed. It saves time, reduces costs, preserves relationships and enables parties to retain control over outcomes in a way that litigation often cannot. The courts are right to encourage parties to explore settlement before committing substantial resources to contested proceedings.
However, there is a distinction between encouraging mediation and creating unnecessary barriers to those who provide it.
One of the challenges currently facing the ADR sector is the increasing regulatory burden placed upon providers, particularly within the consumer ADR market. Whilst robust standards and consumer confidence are important objectives, there is a legitimate concern that excessive administrative requirements, reporting obligations and compliance costs may have unintended consequences.
Smaller and specialist providers often deliver highly effective services, drawing upon decades of practical experience in law, business and dispute resolution. If regulatory frameworks become disproportionately expensive or complex, there is a risk that some providers will leave the market altogether. This could reduce competition, diminish consumer choice and ultimately concentrate ADR provision within a relatively small number of larger organisations.
The success of mediation has been built upon innovation, flexibility and diversity. The sector benefits from mediators with a wide range of backgrounds, including lawyers, surveyors, accountants, engineers, former judges, business leaders and industry specialists. Any future regulatory framework should seek to preserve that diversity rather than inadvertently restrict it.
The challenge for policymakers is therefore not simply to promote mediation, but to ensure that regulation remains proportionate. The objective should be to maintain high standards whilst allowing providers of different sizes to continue serving the public effectively.
Looking Forward
There can be little doubt that mediation will play an increasingly important role within the justice system over the coming years. The courts, government and dispute resolution community are all moving in the same direction.
For lawyers, mediation must now be considered from the outset of a case. For clients, it offers an opportunity to resolve disputes more quickly, more economically and with greater control over outcomes. For mediators, the opportunities are considerable, but so too are the responsibilities.
The challenge for the profession is not whether mediation will continue to grow, but how that growth can be managed whilst preserving the qualities that have made mediation such a successful means of resolving disputes.
If the correct balance can be achieved between judicial encouragement, professional standards, innovation and proportionate regulation, mediation will continue to flourish as one of the most effective and constructive methods of resolving disputes available in modern civil justice.
The age of mediation as a peripheral process has passed. The age of mediation as a mainstream component of civil justice has arrived.
Peter Causton is a barrister, Deputy District Judge and accredited mediator. He is a Fellow of the Civil Mediation Council and Director of ProMediate (UK) Limited.