© Getty images
Two years into the ADR reforms, John McElroy & Dr Kirstie Imber examine the boundary between reasonable resistance & costly non-engagement
- Following the decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, the overriding objective now expressly includes ‘promoting or using alternative dispute resolution’.
- Recent decisions illustrate how judges are approaching costs sanctions under the updated rules.
The civil litigation landscape has changed significantly since the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416. Following amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in October 2024, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is no longer separate from the court process but a core component of it.
One of the most significant changes to the CPR post-Churchill is the scope of the overriding objective. The objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost now expressly includes ‘promoting or using’ ADR (CPR 1.1(2)(f)), and the courts have explicit case management
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
