In a significant legal development, the Court of Appeal has issued its judgment in the case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, setting a precedent on the compulsory use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in civil claims. The case revolves around an alleged infestation of Japanese Knotweed in Mr. Churchill’s garden, with claims that it originated from the council’s land and caused a nuisance. Merthyr Tydfil Council defended the claim by acknowledging that they had treated Japanese Knotweed on the land on several occasions, over many years preceding Mr Churchill’s ownership of the property. The judgment has far-reaching implications on the delicate balance between the right to access the courts and the promotion of ADR processes.

Background of the Case

In August 2021 Mr Churchill issued a claim against the Council for damages of £42,840.80 resulting from the encroachment of Japanese Knotweed onto Mr Churchill’s land, together with an injunction to ensure its abolition. In February 2022, the council sought a stay of proceedings, requesting that the matter proceed through its internal complaints procedure. The Deputy District Judge initially dismissed the application, citing the case – Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, where Lord Justice Dyson emphasised that forcing unwilling parties into mediation infringed their right to court access.

The central issues brought before the Court of Appeal were whether the judge’s decision in the Halsey case remained good law, whether parties could be compelled to engage in ADR, and whether an internal complaints procedure could be considered a form of ADR.

Court’s Findings and Legal Principles

The view derived from Halsey was critically reassessed by the Court of Appeal. The panel including Baroness Carr, Lady Chief Justice, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Birss clarified that the relevant passage in Halsey was made in passing allowing for parties to be compelled to engage in some form of ADR. The Court of Appeal has clarified that while Halsey’s principles remain persuasive, they are not a limitation that binds judicial discretion. Therefore, any order for ADR must not impair the principle of a claimant’s right to a judicial hearing and should be proportionate to achieving a fair, quick, and cost-effective resolution.

Justice Vos emphasised the discretionary nature of the court’s role in determining the method of ADR, considering factors such as the legal representation, effectiveness, urgency, costs, and the parties’ resources. The Court highlighted the need for flexibility in applying these principles to stay a claim at any point in ongoing litigation.

Implications for Parties in Litigation

The court now has the authority to stay proceedings for non-court-based dispute resolution if it is proportionate and preserves the right to parties partaking in a judicial hearing. The Civil Procedure Rules provide a framework for courts to actively manage cases, encouraging ADR where appropriate. Various rules empower the court to order compulsory ADR or stay proceedings for an attempt to find resolution in a case.

The judgment in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil marks a significant milestone in the evolving landscape of compulsory ADR in civil claims. The Court of Appeal’s nuanced approach recognises the importance of balancing the right to access the courts with the benefits of parties attending ADR. It is anticipated that this case will contribute to the ongoing trend of ADR processes becoming a compulsory first step in dispute resolution.

For further advice or information please contact B P Collins’ dispute resolution team at or call 01753 889995. You can also visit B P Collins’ sister business, for swift, out of court resolutions to your dispute.

Related Services

Related Team Specialists

Speak to an expert

Or send us an email