Lady Chief Justice floats possible new London Dispute Resolution Committee and Mediation Council

In a recent lecture for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Mediation after the Singapore Convention, Lady Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, has considered how mediation might develop and evolve in the light of the Singapore Convention. She suggests that the UK should take a considered rather than ad hoc approach, and should learn lessons from other jurisdictions around the world.

The Singapore Convention

The first question, though, is the status of the Singapore Convention itself, which Lady Carr notes has been signed by 58 countries, including the UK in May 2023, but to date only 14 have ratified it – which notably does not (yet) include the UK. While we are still expecting the UK to ratify the Convention, it seems that this has not yet made it to the top of the incoming Labour government's "to do" pile. The Lady Chief Justice's speech is therefore welcome in shining a spotlight on the Convention and its benefits.

The legal effect of the Convention, as explained more fully in our blog post reporting on the UK's intention to join, is to require contracting states to enforce international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, without the need for the enforcing party to bring proceedings for breach of contract. That is likely to have limited practical impact so far as UK ratification is concerned – both because mediated settlements are, in most cases, honoured by the parties to them and because there is rarely any difficulty in persuading the UK courts to enforce a valid settlement agreement (whether or not it results from mediation), albeit through the mechanism of a claim for breach of contract rather than directly as the Convention would permit. Nevertheless, the Convention regime, when ratified, will add to the range of tools for cross-border enforcement.

However, the key benefits of the UK joining do not lie in the text of the Convention so much as in the messages that membership would send, particularly in reassuring foreign parties of the benefits and reliability of commercial mediation, and in further enhancing the UK's reputation as a leading pro-mediation jurisdiction. The UK's ratification of the Convention may also encourage other states to join, which has potential benefits for UK parties seeking to enforce international mediated settlements abroad, including in jurisdictions which – absent the Convention – may not be seen as so mediation-friendly.

What does the Lady Chief Justice propose?

Lady Carr comments that the promotion of international mediation, consequent to the Singapore Convention, is likely to prompt practical developments in our legal landscape that will enhance the rule of law, including through the development of International Commercial Mediation Centres in those jurisdictions that ratify the Convention, enhanced training and standards for skilled mediators, a court framework to support mediation, and a reduction of pressure on international arbitration including through the use of hybrid processes which could result in cases settling earlier and more cost-effectively.

Lady Carr suggests that, to secure these benefits, the UK should take a considered approach and learn lessons from other jurisdictions, including Singapore and India. More specifically:

• Looking to Singapore's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution, which was established as far back as 1996, Lady Carr questions whether we could see the establishment, similarly, of a London Dispute Resolution Committee to make recommendations on how best to provide a holistic approach to international mediation, arbitration and litigation. It could, for example, look at what amendments might be needed to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to ensure that the courts provide effective support for international mediation, including the enforcement of mediated settlements.
• Looking to both Singapore, with its International Mediation Institute to regulate mediators and secure high standards, and India, with its recent legislation providing for the creation of a Mediation Council to lay down guidelines for the education, certification and assessment of mediators, Lady Carr questions whether we might wish to introduce a formal Council with a similar role. While a lot of this work is already carried out here by, for example, the Civil Mediation Council and organisations like CEDR, she queries whether a new body might enhance standards and ensure that England and Wales is best able to operate as a leading international mediation centre.

Is any of this needed?

The UK has, for many years, been recognised as a leading jurisdiction for international dispute resolution, with commercial parties globally regularly opting to enter into contracts which are governed by English law and subject either to the jurisdiction of the English courts or to English-seated arbitration.

At the same time, the UK and in particular England and Wales has gained a reputation as a mediation-friendly jurisdiction as ADR has become more and more firmly integrated into the dispute resolution landscape. At least when it comes to major commercial disputes, it is now rare to reach trial (or an arbitration hearing) without the parties having attempted to settle through some form of ADR, most often mediation, perhaps on multiple occasions. The Commercial Court Guide has even done away with the term "ADR", to reflect the view expressed by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, a few years ago that ADR is in no sense "alternative" – though the alternative expression "NDR", or "Negotiated Dispute Resolution", which is used in the Guide does not seem to have caught on more broadly.

Other developments illustrate the courts' recognition of the importance of ADR in more concrete terms:

• As Lady Carr notes, the Court of Appeal's decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 established that the courts have the power to compel even unwilling parties to engage in ADR.
• The Civil Procedure Rules were amended in October 2024 to confirm that power, and to make it clear that the courts' overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as practicable, promoting or using ADR.
• Mandatory mediation has also been introduced as a standard procedural step in the majority of civil claims allocated to the County Court's Small Claims track (generally, claims valued below £10,000). Such procedures could be expanded to higher value County Court claims.
• Even before the Churchill decision, the encouragement of ADR was a key aspect of the court's case management powers, which the courts regularly exercised in a variety of ways – including through orders requiring parties to "take such serious steps as they may be advised" to resolve their disputes through ADR, and through the use of costs sanctions for failures to mediate. (And now of course the court's armoury of case management tools includes direct orders to mediate.)
• The encouragement of ADR has also long been built into the courts' pre-action protocols, which emphasise that litigation should be a last resort. More recently, the Civil Justice Council has proposed the introduction of mandatory requirements to engage in a pre-action ADR process, with a default requirement for at least an inter-party meeting.

So ADR is very firmly entrenched as part of the dispute resolution process in England and Wales, and there are many reputable providers of mediation services and many highly skilled and experienced mediators. So is there a problem that needs to be fixed in terms of the status of ADR or the standards met by ADR professionals? We suspect the answer is no. But does that mean there is no room for development? Again, no.

By establishing central bodies responsible for ADR training and standards, and for ensuring a holistic approach to dispute resolution, there may be scope for the UK to enhance further its reputation as a global dispute resolution centre. In large part the drive for the development of international standards for ADR has come from organisations supported by the users of ADR, most notably the International Mediation Institute ( www.imimediation.org ). Many practitioners would argue that the UK already offers world class ADR services – for example with the infrastructure of the International Dispute Resolution Centre and a host of pioneering mediation providers and chambers – in tandem with its leading commercial courts and arbitration offering. Yet Lady Carr's suggestions seem worth further consideration, provided there is the funding and coordinating will. After all, there is no scope for the UK resting on its laurels in a competitive and developing international dispute resolution landscape.