The Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgment allowing court-ordered mediation “providing this would not infringe on the right to a fair trial” and that the court could order sanctions or stay proceedings whilst ADR was being carried out providing the order made is “proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost”. 

This overturned the Halsey judgment which stated that compulsory ADR "would be regarded as an unacceptable constraint on the right of access to the court."

Compulsory mediation confirmed that ADR (and mediation) is not an alternative to court, but an integral role ADR has in resolving disputes, including at all stages of any court process. The two can - and should - co-exist. Disputes need to be resolved. Distress needs to be acknowledged. Mediation often achieves this better than a court process ever can, usually earlier and at less cost.

Two sparring camps emerged. 

The red corner (including the Law Society) said something like: “But what does this mean for everyone’s right to a court process? We don’t want that, let’s object.” 

The blue corner (including many mediators) said something like: “But what does this mean to the principle that mediation should always be a voluntary process? We don’t want that. Let’s object.”

The Dalai Lama said: "Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck." (But he may not have said it about this case per se.)