Refusing to engage?

Writing in the New Law Journal, Hausfeld Senior Associate Edward Nyman considers themes emerging from recent cases where parties have declined to engage in alternative dispute resolution.

Drawing together the judgments in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil, Grijns v Grijns and Belson v Belson, the article explores the relationship between the courts’ growing willingness to encourage, and in some circumstances order, ADR and the fact‑sensitive assessment of whether a refusal to mediate is unreasonable. It also considers the impact of the October 2024 amendment to CPR 44.2(5) on how conduct around ADR is taken into account when determining costs.

This article was originally published in the New Law Journal, edition of 27th March 2026.