According to recent government statistics, around 97% of civil litigation cases never make it to trial, with the majority being settled away from the courtroom. The same can be said of commercial cases, with similar data suggesting upwards of three-quarters of cases go the same way.

Having said that, the percentage of cases that do go to court represents a huge burden for the British taxpayer, with approximately £2.8 billion expected to be spent on HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) over the 2025/26 period. 

This is why a change was needed… But how has the law changed to encourage out-of-court settlements, and how does this affect your case if you’re knee-deep in litigation yourself? At St Helens Law, we’re experts in both commercial litigation and civil litigation and are here to ensure your needs are heard and met by the legal powers that be.

If you’re seeking legal advice, representation, or an independent arbitrator, speak with a member of our world-class team today.

Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (2023): A legal turning point

As of late 2024/early 2025, the court now has legal authority to force the parties in litigation to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) before taking things further, which wasn’t always the case. In other words, they need to at least attempt to solve their issues away from court proceedings, possibly through an arbitration agreement, rather than heading straight for a legal dispute at the highest level.

The landmark alteration came from an unlikely source; In 2023, a Mr. Churchill (no relation to the wartime leader) sued his local council, claiming that Japanese knotweed had spread from council-owned land onto his property, causing damage. As a result, the council requested that the court order Mr. Churchill to halt movement towards a wider dispute, encouraging him to first utilise the council’s internal complaints system, which he’d neglected to use.

This raised an interesting question: can the court legally ask someone to explore alternative methods of resolution first? Or would this be a breach of their rights?

As it turns out, yes. The Court of Appeal ruled that, under English law, courts do have the power to make such demands, as long as it does not prevent the claimant from having their case heard in court, should things need to go that far.

When can the courts order ADR?

English courts can order ADR at any point during the case, but it’s far more likely to order it under three specific circumstances:

• If the context of the case is a simple one that wouldn’t require complex legal rulings.
• If the claim is a small one (under £10,000).
• If one or both of the disputing parties have actively refused ADR.

For those who refuse pre-court mediation methods, instead of recommending ADR schemes, courts have now made this the legally-binding default rule as a cost, resource, and time-saving measure.

How have new ADR rules affected litigation cases?

Although these new rules have only been in place for a short time, litigation cases in the UK are already feeling the effects.

Recent data shows there has been a 9% decrease in the number of civil litigation cases reaching the courtroom. This doesn’t sound too dramatic, but it becomes a far more prominent figure when you consider that litigation cases are on the rise. Traditionally, we would see the number of court cases heading in the same direction.

This shows there is a direct correlation between the ruling and the number of litigation cases reaching court in the UK.

Why is ADR gaining popularity?

Aside from the legal rulings, there are plenty of reasons why all parties involved should want to seek ADR:

Speed: Since there’s no need to go to court, matters are generally resolved much quicker via ADR.

Cost: Court battles can be a lengthy, expensive process. ADR negates the need for this.

Flexibility: Judges are limited in their resolution powers. By solving issues amicably, you and the other party have the chance to find bespoke solutions that work for their specific circumstances.

Confidentiality: Court trials are open to the public record, meaning anyone could delve into your private business. ADR keeps your issues away from the spotlight.

What the new ADR rules mean for clients and legal advisers

If you’re considering a civil or commercial litigation claim, it is important to consider that you’ll be required to enter into ADR relatively soon in the process, which isn’t a bad thing – it gives all involved parties the chance to solve their disputes without things getting “ugly.”

From a solicitor’s perspective, we now have an obligation to reinforce the new rules while keeping you fully aware of the opportunities and potential positive results ADR can have, should we feel it is the best option for you.

But rest assured, at St Helens Law, we will always advise you on what we feel to be the best move for your specific litigation case, based on our years of experience.

Talk to St Helens Law about resolving your dispute

With ADR now being the preferred course of action in the UK, it gives everyone involved in a civil or commercial litigation the chance to save themselves – and the taxpayer – plenty of cash by avoiding court proceedings.

But whether you would like to settle things between yourselves, or you feel there is an inherent need for a court case, St Helens Law is here for you.

With vast experience in all types of litigation and exceptional track records when it comes to resolving disputes via ADR options, we’re an easy choice if you want to see the best results for your case. We take a pragmatic approach to your case, gathering witness statements and collecting evidence on your behalf, and using our legal expertise to offer the outcome you deserve.

Get in touch with the team at St Helens Law directly for more information, or enter your contact details in our free consultation form and we’ll be back in touch shortly.