Case Summary - Churchill V Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023]

Facts

Mr Churchill claimed damages to his property caused by Japanese Knotweed spreading from neighbouring land owned by the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.

The council had a non-binding internal complaints procedure, but Mr Churchill refused to follow it and directly issued court proceedings.

The council sought a stay on the court proceedings, requesting Mr Churchill engage in their complaints process first.

Legal principles

Courts can order parties to engage in non-court-based ADR in appropriate circumstances.

A party's refusal to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be considered unreasonable conduct in litigation.

Courts retain discretion on whether to order ADR and will consider factors such as the nature of the dispute, costs, and potential for settlement through ADR.

There is no obligation for courts to compel participation in binding ADR.

The decision overturned Lord Justice Dyson’s comments in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, that forcing unwilling parties to mediate would obstruct their right to access the court.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the claimant had been unreasonable in not engaging with the Council’s non-binding complaints procedure and that the court could, in its discretion, order parties to engage in an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure when appropriate or order that proceedings be paused – stayed – until this takes place.

Some of the factors that courts may wish to take into account when deciding whether to order a stay on proceedings for ADR to take place include whether:

·        the dispute is complex or better suited for negotiation in ADR;

·        ADR will be faster and cheaper than going to court;

·        there is a good chance ADR will settle the dispute;

·        both parties are willing to participate in ADR fairly;

·        the chosen ADR method is appropriate for the dispute.

More recent cases

Due to the recent nature of the case, there are no established citations in reported cases yet. However, legal commentaries discuss its potential impact on encouraging pre-court dispute resolution mechanisms.

Significance

Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council is a significant case as it strengthens the court's power to encourage out-of-court settlements. The case emphasises the potential benefits of ADR while acknowledging judicial discretion in its application. It is likely this case will be cited in future rulings concerning the use of ADR in resolving disputes.