The British Courts and Compulsory ADR—How Did That Happen?

On 29 November 2023, the Court of Appeal held in James Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, that the courts of England and Wales are entitled lawfully to order parties to engage in non-court-based dispute resolution processes. This important decision should not come as a surprise. This article will argue by reference to case law, judicial commentary and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that this decision is the most recent expression of an impulse the courts have long maintained: that a case can be dealt with justly by moving (by various means) litigants away from the judgment seat to one of negotiated, consensual outcomes. The decision corrects an anomaly within the CPR that obliges parties to further the overriding objective by considering alternative dispute resolution but deprives the court of a particular remedy to enforce that obligation. This article will trace the roots of the Court of Appeal decision and identify to what extent it is the natural progression in judicial thinking, and it truly breaks new ground. Keywords: ADR; justice; civil justice; court reforms; overriding objective; Halsey; CPR; Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil; Article 6; arbitration agreements.