Gordon Tregaskis discusses the recent changes in England and Wales’ Mediation – and its encouragement of the use of ADR through recent changes; CPR Changes New Dawn or False Hope?

17 October 2024

A new dawn for Mediation?

Commercial Mediation - Shaking Hands. Gordon Tregaskis Commercial Mediator

There has been much ado in mediation circles this year following the case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (Churchill) and the introduction in October 2024 of changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Some commentators see these developments as a new dawn, other commentators are not so sure. At least one commentator raised the question of how any increased uptake in mediation will be measured. The mediation market is not limited to cases in the High Court. Many more disputes are resolved through arbitration particularly international disputes.


Let’s be clear, these recent changes do not create a mandatory mediation regime for users of the English Court System. Mediation is only mandated for small claims not exceeding £10,000 in value and even then both parties must agree to take part. In Churchill the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to overturn what the Court believed were the obiter (non-binding) findings of Lord Justice Dyson in the case of Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust 2004. Dyson LJ had expressed concern that compelling parties to mediate would breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Following the Churchill judgement and recent changes in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the English courts can mandate that parties in dispute before the courts explore Alternative Dispute Resolution. (ADR). This is by no means automatic but more of an additional discretion in the judicial toolbox to mandate ADR  in the management of disputes. In other words, courts do have the power to order parties into ADR but are not forced to use the power. In effect the judge must now consider whether an ADR Order risks impairment of the claimant’s right to a judicial hearing and/or is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at a reasonable cost.


CPR Rule 1 sets out the overriding objective of civil justice as enabling the court to deal with cases “justly and at proportionate cost”. This is now expanded to include the use and promotion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).  Therefore, ADR is now part of the objective of achieving civil justice and can include ordering parties to use an ADR procedure if the court considers it appropriate. There are also consequent changes to Rules 3, 28 and 29 of the CPR which introduce ADR and Early Neutral Evaluation as methods for disposing of disputes and hence trim down the court lists.


In the words of Catherine Dixon, CEO of CIArb, “The CPR changes could enable a cultural shift in how ADR is viewed and used by parties, lawyers and the judiciary [as] ADR is now enshrined as part of the overriding objective for civil justice – this is a significant change”

I am not so sure and, by the use of the conditional tense, perhaps Ms Dixon is also yet to be convinced?


Engaging in ADR is mostly about timing. Where teams that created the dispute in the first place are charged with resolving the issues, mediation will not be a popular choice. Too early and there is often too much pervasive anger and human emotion present, with the people who negotiated the deal offended at its breach or failure whilst each party views the other a prism of scepticism. Any mediator will know that feelings as well as facts may affect the parties’ decision making.


Once elevated to higher management with a budget request or an accounting reporting requirement it is more likely each team will be represented by senior management who have a more pragmatic view of commercial disputes and the need to avoid the loss of otherwise productive resources time in an endeavour which will not directly add to the company’s profits. Mediation works best when the parties are willing to take part and are prepared to be as honest and open as they can be about the dispute and how it has arisen. Both parties will need to compromise and make concessions.


Get the timing wrong and the parties will not engage nor properly consider using it. Mediators regularly band the drum about early intervention and referral to mediation. By the time a judge makes an Order or encourages parties to use ADR, they have been battling for on average 18-24 months, and sometimes much longer. The question is then why are lawyers and professional advisors not mandated to refer clients to mediators for ADR assessments? This should be an early  step in any legal dispute. Once referred, the parties will have a better opportunity to understand, build trust, and prepare for negotiation.

Whilst the amendments to the CPR are courageous, they are not enough, in my view, to turn the cultural tide on ADR uptake with the effect of these changes being unlikely to be measured accurately across the mediation market.


The CPR are, of course, not to be confused with CPR in medical usage as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mediation is alive and well albeit underutilised but perhaps requiring a firmer push in the right direction.

Perhaps much ado about nothing?


Please feel free to contact me if you would like to explore using mediation or other form of ADR.

24 June 2025
Early Termination of a Major Infrastructure Project: How Mediation Resolves High-Stakes Cross-Border Disputes  The construction and infrastructure sectors often face complex disputes that can halt progress or threaten relationships. When these disagreements involve multiple countries, legal systems, and cultural nuances, resolving them efficiently becomes even more challenging. This is where commercial mediation plays a vital role, offering a pragmatic and cost-effective path to resolution. One standout example is a high-stakes dispute concerning the early termination of a tunnelling contract in London. The case, led by Gordon Tregaskis, exemplifies how expert mediation can bridge cultural gaps, facilitate negotiation, and deliver results where traditional litigation or arbitration might falter. Here's the full story of how this dispute unfolded – and how mediation proved to be the ultimate key to resolution. The Case at a Glance The disagreement involved two parties from vastly different backgrounds – one Thai and the other British – over the early termination of a multi-million-pound tunnelling contract. The Claimants initially sought damages of £30 million, while the British respondents refuted the claims, countering with an offer that covered only their legal costs for arbitration at £1 million. With such polarised positions, finding common ground seemed almost impossible. The mediation began with high hopes but reached a deadlock on the first day, with neither party willing to budge. However, through strategic communication and a commitment to collaboration, Gordon was able to steer the parties toward a settlement of £2.89 million within ten days. This case is a valuable case study demonstrating the nuances of effective mediation. Overcoming the Challenges of Cross-Border Disputes Cross-border disputes like this one come with a unique set of challenges. Differences in legal frameworks, business practices, cultural values, and even negotiation styles can quickly derail discussions. Mediation provides a neutral and adaptable platform to bridge these differences, fostering understanding and cooperation. Navigating Cultural Sensitivities One of the fundamental barriers in international disputes is cultural disparity. It’s not just about language differences—it’s about nuanced negotiation behaviours, expectations, and communication styles. Thai negotiation styles, for instance, often favour non-confrontational approaches, whereas British counterparts may adopt a more direct way of addressing issues. Gordon’s experience in cross-cultural mediation was instrumental in this case. Rather than letting misunderstandings deepen the divide, he provided a neutral space where both sides felt heard and respected. His ability to mediate culturally sensitive discussions enabled the parties to focus on the facts without letting personal or cultural differences cloud their judgment. Aligning International Legal Perspectives Another significant challenge lay in harmonising the legal frameworks of the two jurisdictions involved. Thai and British legal systems differ greatly in terms of contract law and dispute resolution methods. For lawyers and professionals representing parties in such situations, mediation offers a valuable alternative to being locked into a single legal framework. Gordon’s ability to draw upon his extensive legal knowledge and explain each side’s perspectives in plain language was crucial in fostering mutual understanding. The Power of Strategic Communication While mediation itself is inherently strategic, Gordon’s approach in this case set a benchmark for effective communication practices. The first day of the mediation saw both parties maintaining rigid positions, with no willingness to compromise. However, Gordon recognised the need for ongoing dialogue beyond the mediation room. Continuing the Negotiation Beyond One Day One major advantage of mediation, as opposed to traditional litigation, is its flexibility. When the first round of negotiations ended in a stalemate, Gordon suggested implementing an ongoing communication strategy. Over the course of ten days, the two parties engaged in regular phone calls, orchestrated by Gordon, focusing on smaller aspects of the dispute. This persistence paid off. With each call, trust began to build, and the parties gradually moved towards the middle ground. By keeping the lines of communication open, a rigid gridlock evolved into a meaningful dialogue—a critical step that eventually led to resolution. Focusing on Common Ground Throughout the discussions, Gordon adeptly guided the conversations toward areas of mutual agreement. This approach helped the two parties recognise potential solutions instead of fixating solely on their differences. For businesses and legal professionals involved in mediation, this is a key takeaway. Finding shared goals or values—such as minimising public exposure of the conflict or avoiding drawn-out legal proceedings—can be the first step towards resolution. Cost-Effectiveness in Commercial Mediation For businesses embroiled in disputes of this magnitude, cost is an understandable concern. While litigation and arbitration are reliable legal avenues, they often come with significant expense, time commitments, and uncertainty. Mediation presents an appealing alternative that reduces these burdens. Avoiding Prolonged Legal Proceedings Had this case gone to arbitration, both parties would have incurred substantial costs in terms of legal fees, expert witnesses, and procedural delays. Gordon’s mediation efforts led to a resolution in just ten days. For professionals in legal and business sectors, this highlights one of mediation’s most significant advantages—efficiency. Preservation of Relationships Another advantage of mediation lies in its collaborative nature. Unlike litigation, which often pits parties against one another in a winner-takes-all scenario, mediation encourages both sides to work together towards an outcome that satisfies everyone’s interests. This case concluded with both parties accepting the £2.89 million settlement, avoiding the long-term damage to business relationships that often results from contentious legal battles. Key Lessons for Legal Professionals and Businesses The success of this mediation holds valuable lessons for legal professionals and businesses in the UK who are looking to resolve disputes more efficiently: Invest in Skilled Mediators - Having a seasoned mediator like Gordon Tregaskis can make all the difference. His deep understanding of cross-cultural dynamics and strategic negotiation techniques shifted the case from an impasse to resolution. Leverage Mediation for Cross-Border Disputes - For disputes involving international parties, mediation offers a flexible and neutral framework that eliminates many of the jurisdictional challenges posed by litigation. Adopt Strategic Communication - Open and ongoing dialogue, even outside the confines of mediation sessions, can lay the groundwork for meaningful compromises. Keeping the channels of communication open was pivotal in this case. Focus on Cost-Effective Outcomes - Mediation not only saves time and costs but also protects reputations and preserves relationships, making it a worthwhile alternative to adversarial legal processes. Closing Thoughts The case of the early termination of a major infrastructure project demonstrates the value of commercial mediation in resolving complex cross-border disputes. For legal professionals and business leaders in the UK, mediation offers a smarter way forward—one that prioritises efficiency, relationship preservation, and long-term benefits over protracted courtroom battles. Gordon Tregaskis’s approach to this case underscores why he is trusted by clients worldwide to handle high-stakes commercial disputes. From understanding cultural nuances to managing communication strategies, his expertise exemplifies the hallmarks of effective mediation. For businesses and solicitors facing their own challenges, choosing mediation could be the difference between costly litigation and a resolution that works for all parties. Please contact Gordon if you need assistance with your dispute.
Construction Dispute - Tregaskis Mediation
2 June 2025
Learn expert strategies for resolving construction disputes, from clear contracts to mediation. Protect your projects and manage conflicts effectively.
19 May 2025
Using Mediation to Avoid Further Disruption to This Middle East Project
16 April 2025
Resolving $160 Million Disputes with Mediation in the Middle East
Construction Image - Tregaskis Mediation
7 April 2025
Negotiation Tips to Prevent Project Collapse
More posts