ADR and dispute resolution clauses

The Practice Notes in this subtopic provide users with an understanding of what alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, the different types of ADR that are available and the key differences between them, as well as considering the development of ADR and the court’s power to encourage or order the parties to consider ADR as an effective means of resolving civil disputes otherwise than in the court system. It also considers the different types of dispute resolution clause which parties may include in their commercial agreements, including those providing for different forms of ADR (including tiered and hybrid clauses).

Although the Commercial Courts refer instead to negotiated dispute resolution (NDR), for ease of reference the term ADR is generally used throughout the content in this subtopic.

For cross-border disputes, see also: Cross-border ADR—overview.

For guidance on recent developments in ADR, see Practice Note: Tracker—ADR developments.

For general guidance on settling disputes, see:

•
Settlement and settling disputes—overview
•
Part 36 offers—overview

What is ADR?

The importance of ADR as a key element of the English civil justice system cannot be overlooked.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

CJC launches consultation on AI use in court document preparation

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has launched a consultation on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by legal representatives in the preparation of court documents. The consultation, conducted by the CJC's 'Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents' Working Group, considers whether rules are required to regulate the use of AI in drafting pleadings, witness statements and expert reports. The working group was established at the CJC's annual strategy meeting in January 2025 and is chaired by the Deputy Head of Civil Justice, Lord Justice Birss. Its members include High Court judges, CJC members and representatives from the Bar Council and the Law Society. The consultation closes on 14 April 2026. Following the consultation, the CJC will publish a final report.

Practical considerations when seeking an extension of time for the claim form (Lloyds Developments Ltd (in administration) v Accor SA)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Eyre allowed the defendant’s application and set aside the order extending time for service. He held that the claimant had failed to establish a good reason for extending time to serve the claim form. The delays relied upon were either tactical or self-inflicted and did not amount to genuine obstacles to service within the six-month period. In particular, the desire to align pleadings with related proceedings and the time required for translation were matters going to the particulars of claim, not to the claim form itself, which could and should have been served in time. The judge also placed significant weight on limitation. The extension carried service beyond the expiry of the limitation period, thereby potentially depriving the defendant of an arguable limitation defence. That consequence had not been properly drawn to the court’s attention on the without-notice application, and reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) was far from straightforward.

Forum selection for data protection claims (Wysokinski v OCS Security Ltd)

Information Law analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a judge was entitled to transfer a data protection and human rights claim from the High Court to the County Court pursuant to CPR 53.4(2). The claim was neither complex nor high value and raised no issue warranting trial by a High Court judge. This decision provides critical guidance on forum selection for data protection claims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that data protection claims can and do proceed in the County Court, which is the correct forum for claims that are not high value, factually or legally complex, or of significant public importance. Written by Caitlin Moreland, associate at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

Court of Appeal clarifies approach to conflicting dispute resolution clauses (Tyson v GIC Re, India)

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of conflicting dispute resolution clauses. Where inconsistent provisions (for example, conflicting arbitration and jurisdiction clauses) are contained within the same document, the document must be read as a whole, with effect given to all clauses if possible. However, this principle has limited application where the conflicting clauses are in different documents and governed by a hierarchy provision or 'confusion clause'. In that instance, (as in this case), where the clauses are inconsistent the hierarchy clause will apply. This significant judgment highlights the value of a clearly drafted express hierarchy provision in cases of conflict. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News