Reasonable Grounds to Refuse Mediation in the UK (2026): When Refusal Is Justified and the Costs Risks

Understanding the reasonable grounds to refuse mediation in the UK has become essential for every litigant, in-house lawyer and solicitor since the Court of Appeal’s landmark guidance in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in November 2023. That decision, combined with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) amendments that followed in 2024, confirmed that courts possess the power to order parties into alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and to impose significant costs sanctions on those who refuse without good reason. The practical question is no longer whether mediation can be compelled, but when refusal remains legally defensible and how to document that defence so it withstands judicial scrutiny.

Can I Refuse Mediation? Quick Answer on Reasonable Grounds to Refuse Mediation UK

Yes, you can still refuse mediation, but only where your reasons meet the threshold the courts recognise as reasonable. Refusing without proper justification now carries a real risk of adverse costs orders, even if you ultimately win your case on the merits. Here are the key points every party should know:

• Courts can order ADR. Following Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil, the Court of Appeal confirmed that judges may lawfully order parties to engage in mediation or another form of non-court dispute resolution, provided the order does not impair a party’s right of access to the court.
• Recognised reasonable grounds exist. Safety concerns (domestic abuse, threats), genuine urgency requiring injunctive relief, a legally one-sided case with strong summary judgment prospects, and disproportionate costs relative to the claim value are all accepted categories.
• Costs sanctions are the primary enforcement tool. A party that unreasonably refuses to mediate may be deprived of its costs even after winning at trial, or ordered to pay the opponent’s costs on an indemnity basis.
• Documentation is critical. The burden of showing that refusal was reasonable falls on the refusing party. Contemporaneous evidence, solicitor’s letters, fee estimates, medical reports, is essential.

Legal Framework: CPR, Halsey Principles and the Post-Churchill Test

The law on reasonable grounds to refuse mediation in the UK rests on three pillars: the original Halsey guidance from 2004, the Court of Appeal’s restatement in Churchill in 2023, and the CPR amendments that codified the new approach from 2024 onward.

Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust (2004), the Original Test

In Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, the Court of Appeal set out factors a court should consider when deciding whether a refusal to mediate was unreasonable. These included the nature of the dispute, the merits of the case, the extent to which other settlement methods had been attempted, whether mediation costs would be disproportionately high, and whether any delay caused by mediation would have been prejudicial. Critically, the Halsey court stated, in obiter, that ordering parties to mediate against their will might breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right of access to a court). That observation shaped practice for nearly two decades, discouraging judges from making compulsory ADR orders.

Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil, the Practical Takeaway

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 overturned the obiter position in Halsey on compulsion. The court held that:

• Judges do have the lawful power to order parties to engage in a non-court dispute resolution process, including mediation.
• Such an order does not infringe Article 6, provided it does not obstruct the party’s ultimate right to have the case determined by a court if ADR fails.
• The Halsey factors for assessing whether a refusal was unreasonable remain relevant, but the starting assumption has shifted: engagement with ADR is now expected, and the party refusing must justify its stance.
• Courts should tailor orders to the case, for example, by specifying the form of ADR, setting a timetable and capping costs, so that the process is proportionate.

Industry observers expect the practical effect of Churchill to be a steady increase in court-ordered mediation across civil and commercial lists, with judges treating refusal with considerably less tolerance than before.

Civil Procedure Rules 2024, Mediation Provisions

Following Churchill, amendments to the CPR reinforced the court’s ADR toolkit. Key changes include:

• Express power to order ADR. The CPR now explicitly empowers courts to order parties to participate in ADR at any stage of proceedings.
• Active case management duty. The court’s existing duty under CPR Part 1 to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost has been supplemented by clearer language encouraging ADR and requiring parties to cooperate with proposals for settlement.
• Costs consequences formalised. The costs rules make clear that unreasonable refusal to engage with ADR is a factor the court must consider when exercising its costs discretion under CPR Part 44.

Together, these changes mean that litigants in England and Wales should treat any invitation, or order, to mediate as a compliance obligation requiring a documented, reasoned response.

Accepted Categories of Reasonable Grounds to Refuse Mediation

Not every case is suitable for mediation. Courts recognise several categories where refusal may be justified, but in each case the refusing party must show objective evidence, not mere reluctance. The following categories draw on the Halsey factors, practitioner guidance from the Family Mediation Council, and post-Churchill commentary.

Safety, Domestic Abuse or Threats of Violence

Where there is a history of domestic violence, coercive control or credible threats, mediation is unlikely to produce a fair outcome and may put a party at risk. In family proceedings, this is a statutory ground for exemption from the Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM). In civil disputes involving personal threats, the same principle applies. Courts will accept police crime references, restraining or non-molestation orders, medical records and a solicitor’s certificate confirming the risk.

Urgency, Need for Injunctive or Summary Relief

If delay would cause irreparable harm, for example, a freezing order to prevent dissipation of assets, or an interim injunction to prevent breach of a restrictive covenant, the court will accept that mediation cannot address the immediate need. Evidence should include a draft application for interim relief, a schedule of anticipated loss and a solicitor’s note explaining why the timetable for mediation is incompatible with the urgency.

No Real Prospect of Success, Legally One-Sided Case

Where one party has overwhelming prospects of success, for instance, an unanswerable summary judgment application, mediation may serve no purpose beyond delay. The refusing party should be prepared to demonstrate the strength of its position through pleadings, case law citations and a skeleton argument. Courts will scrutinise this ground carefully: mere confidence is not enough; the legal position must be objectively clear.

Disproportionate Costs or Complexity

If the cost of engaging a commercial mediator is disproportionate to the value of the claim, refusal may be justified. This arises most often in small claims where mediator fees might consume a significant share of the sum in dispute. Fee quotes and a short comparative analysis showing costs versus likely recovery will support the position.

Active, Productive Negotiations Already Under Way

Where the parties are already engaged in genuine, progressing settlement discussions, through solicitors’ correspondence, Part 36 offers or structured negotiations, a court may accept that imposing a further process would be duplicative and wasteful. The refusing party should produce the correspondence trail demonstrating the stage and trajectory of those talks.

Power Imbalances, Incapacity or Language Barriers

Severe power imbalances, a party’s lack of mental capacity, or language barriers that cannot be remedied by reasonable adjustments may render mediation unsuitable. The Family Mediation Council recognises these factors, and civil courts apply similar reasoning. Supporting evidence might include medical assessments, capacity reports or an explanation of why interpreter-assisted mediation would not adequately address the imbalance.

Evidence Summary Table

Costs and Sanctions for Unreasonable Refusal to Mediate

The real bite of the post-Churchill landscape lies in costs. An unreasonable refusal to mediate costs the refusing party in two ways: loss of a favourable costs order it would otherwise have received, and, in more serious cases, a positive order to pay the opponent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

How Judges Decide Costs Uplift and Adverse Costs

Under CPR Part 44, the court considers all the circumstances when exercising costs discretion. If I refuse mediation will it go against me in court in the UK? The honest answer is: it depends on the quality of your reasons. Judges weigh:

• The nature and complexity of the dispute.
• Whether the refusal was blanket or reasoned.
• Timing, a refusal at an early stage, before costs have escalated, is viewed more harshly than a refusal close to trial when positions are entrenched.
• Whether the refusing party proposed an alternative ADR process.
• The ultimate outcome, a winning party that refused may still be penalised, though the penalty is typically a reduction in recoverable costs rather than an order to pay the opponent’s costs outright.

Practical Threshold Examples

Consider two scenarios. In a commercial claim worth £500,000, the successful claimant refused mediation without explanation. The court might reduce the claimant’s recoverable costs by 15–25 per cent, or award costs on an indemnity basis for the period after the mediation invitation was rejected. In a small claim worth £3,000, the defendant refused mediation because mediator fees of £1,500 plus VAT would represent half the claim value. Provided the defendant documented this with fee quotes and a proportionality note, the court is likely to treat the refusal as reasonable.

Early indications suggest that the range of costs penalties applied in practice since Churchill varies widely, from modest percentage reductions to full indemnity costs orders in egregious cases where a party simply ignored repeated invitations. The key variable is whether the refusal was documented and reasoned, or silent and obstructive.

Family Disputes and MIAMs, Special Rules

Family proceedings have their own framework for mediation, centred on the Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM). Before most family applications, including those relating to children arrangements, financial remedies and certain domestic disputes, the applicant must attend a MIAM or demonstrate that an exemption applies. The Family Mediation Council provides detailed guidance on when mediation might not be suitable.

What to Put in a MIAM Exemption Statement

Common MIAM exemptions include evidence of domestic abuse (police involvement, protective orders, a letter from a refuge), child protection concerns (involvement of local authority children’s services), bankruptcy or the other party’s inability to be contacted despite reasonable efforts. To rely on an exemption, the applicant must complete the relevant section of Form C100 or Form A (depending on the type of application) with supporting evidence attached. The family court treats the MIAM requirement seriously; failing to attend without a valid exemption can result in the application being returned or delayed.

A mediation agreement reached in family proceedings is not automatically legally binding. It becomes enforceable only when converted into a consent order approved by the court. This distinction matters: parties should ensure that any settlement reached through mediation is promptly drawn up as a draft order and submitted for judicial approval.

Practical Steps If You Intend to Refuse Mediation

Refusing mediation safely requires a structured, documented approach. The following steps reduce the risk of costs sanctions and demonstrate good faith to the court.

Template Checklist to Document Refusal

• Respond promptly and in writing. Acknowledge the mediation invitation within 14 days. Silence is treated as unreasonable.
• State specific reasons. Reference the applicable Halsey / Churchill category (safety, urgency, disproportionate costs, etc.).
• Attach supporting evidence. Fee quotes, medical reports, correspondence trails, draft applications, whatever supports your stated ground.
• Offer an alternative. Propose shuttle mediation, online mediation, early neutral evaluation or arbitration if full mediation is unsuitable.
• Keep the door open. State that you are willing to reconsider if circumstances change. Courts view flexibility favourably.
• File a copy with the court. If proceedings are on foot, include your refusal letter and evidence in the court bundle for the next case management hearing.
• Take legal advice. A solicitor’s letter confirming the basis of refusal adds weight.

Alternatives to Face-to-Face Mediation

Courts look favourably on parties who engage with the spirit of ADR even if they decline a particular format. Shuttle mediation (where parties remain in separate rooms and the mediator moves between them) addresses some safety concerns. Online mediation via video platform can mitigate geographical, health or accessibility barriers. Early neutral evaluation by a senior practitioner offers a structured opinion on merits without requiring the parties to negotiate directly. Proposing one of these alternatives demonstrates willingness and may satisfy the court that the party acted reasonably.

As for who pays for mediation in the UK: costs are typically shared equally between the parties, though in some cases the court may order one party to bear the full cost, particularly where income disparity exists. In family proceedings, legal aid may cover mediation costs for eligible parties.

Court-Ordered Mediation: Process, Enforcement and What to Expect

Since Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil and the 2024 CPR changes, court ordered mediation in the UK has become a practical reality rather than a theoretical possibility. A judge may make an ADR order at any case management conference, costs and case management conference, or pre-trial review. The order will typically specify the type of ADR, set a deadline for completion and may cap the costs each party is expected to bear.

Enforcement is indirect: the court does not physically compel attendance, but non-compliance with the order is treated as a serious procedural default. The likely practical effect will be adverse costs consequences, potential strike-out of statements of case in extreme situations, or an unless order requiring compliance before the matter may proceed. Parties who receive such an order should treat it with the same seriousness as any other court direction.

Evidence and Drafting Tips for Counsel

Solicitors and barristers advising a client who intends to refuse mediation should assemble a short evidence bundle designed to withstand costs argument scrutiny at trial. The evolution of mediation as a mainstream dispute resolution tool means judges expect a higher standard of justification than in previous years.

Key Items to Include in the Evidence Bundle

• Chronology of ADR engagement. A timeline showing every invitation, response, and counter-proposal.
• The refusal letter itself. Clear, dated, with specific grounds cited.
• Fee estimates. Quotes from two or three mediators, showing cost relative to claim value.
• Without-prejudice save as to costs correspondence. Evidence of genuine settlement efforts through other channels.
• Expert or medical evidence. Where safety, capacity or vulnerability grounds are relied on.
• Skeleton argument on merits. If the “no real prospect of success” ground is invoked, a concise summary of the legal position.
• Solicitor’s witness statement. A short statement confirming the advice given and the basis of the refusal decision.

As explored in our analysis of mediation under pressure across Europe, the trend toward mandatory or quasi-mandatory ADR is not confined to England and Wales, counsel should be aware of similar developments in cross-border disputes.

Conclusion: Reasonable Grounds to Refuse Mediation UK, Practical Checklist

The law on reasonable grounds to refuse mediation in the UK has tightened considerably since Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil and the 2024 CPR amendments. Parties who refuse mediation without clear, documented justification face real financial consequences, costs sanctions that can erode or reverse even a successful outcome at trial. The following checklist summarises what every litigant should do when faced with a mediation invitation or court order:

• Respond promptly and in writing within 14 days.
• State specific, recognised grounds, do not give a blanket refusal.
• Attach supporting evidence (fee quotes, medical evidence, protective orders, correspondence).
• Propose a realistic alternative ADR process.
• Keep the door open for future mediation if circumstances change.
• File the refusal correspondence with the court at the next available hearing.
• Take specialist legal advice before committing to a final position.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Parties facing a mediation invitation or court order should seek independent professional guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.

Last reviewed: 21 May 2026. This article will be updated following any further CPR amendments, Practice Directions or appellate decisions affecting ADR obligations in England and Wales.

Sources

1. Family Mediation Council, When Mediation Might Not Be Suitable
2. Practical Law (Thomson Reuters), Refusing ADR: Court of Appeal Guidance
3. Parklane Plowden, Costs Consequences of Refusing to Mediate
4. Go-Legal UK, When Is It Reasonable to Refuse Mediation in the UK?
5. Ignition Law, Can I Refuse Mediation?
6. Becket Chambers, Reasons Parties Give for Refusing to Mediate
7. 33 Bedford Row, Mediation and Costs Sanctions
8. DMH Stallard, Saying No to Mediation: A Safe Bet?