Ruling means court-ordered alternative dispute resolution extends beyond construction contracts

Tony bingham 2017 bw web

The appeal court has ruled that parties in any kind of dispute – not just construction – can be court ordered to use alternative dispute resolutions (ADR), explains Tony Bingham

This is a blockbuster of a judgment. Make a note: the name is Churchill vs Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (2023). This very powerful Court of Appeal – consisting of the Master of the Rolls, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Justice Birse – have unanimously decided that the court, any court, can lawfully order disputing parties to engage in a non‑court-based dispute resolution process.

Twenty-five years ago, parliament passed a law saying that this sort of dispute resolution process would apply – and only apply – to “construction contracts”. They gave us construction adjudication. In the 25 years since then, the court has had its beady eye on us folk using this newfangled idea of 28-day adjudication. I go so far as to say that the court gives us folk a solid thumbs-up. And thanks to Churchill vs Merthyr Tydfil, the law now is that those in dispute about bananas, basket cases or whatever can adjudicate. It didn’t require an act of parliament. Instead, this is the High Court exercising rules of court.

Read more …

This content is available to REGISTERED users

You are not currently logged in.

LOGIN or REGISTER to access this story

Gated access promo

LOGIN or REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts.

Take out a print and online or online only subscription and you will get immediate access to:

  • Breaking industry news as it happens
  • Expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
  • Unlimited access to all stories, including premium content
  • Full access to all our online archive

Get access to premium content subscribe today