This blog post has been contributed by Dr Faye Fangfei Wang, Module Convenor for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Rising Cross-Border Disputes and Mediation 

The rapid expansion of digital commerce, social media and online platforms – now increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI) in both content generation and service delivery – has significantly increased the frequency, scale and complexity of cross-border disputes.¹ Traditional litigation, characterised by high costs, procedural delay and jurisdictional fragmentation, is increasingly ill-equipped to respond to the demands of a fast-moving global digital society. As digital interactions transcend national borders and legal systems, there is an urgent need for dispute resolution mechanisms that are flexible, efficient and proportionate. 

Against this backdrop, mediation – whether private, community-based, or court-based/judicial -has emerged as a central feature of dispute resolution across many jurisdictions. In some legal cultures, such as China, mediation is deeply embedded within social and legal tradition,² and modern legislation further promotes community-based mediation as a primary mechanism for resolving civil disputes free of charge.³ In other countries, including Norway, Australia and New Zealand, mediation also plays a long-established and structured role and is made mandatory or even compulsory in the context of family disputes.⁴ For example, in Norway, parents are required to participate in community-based mediation following family breakdowns involving children under the age of 16. If no agreement is reached at this stage, the court seeks to facilitate settlement through court-based, judge-led mediation, aiming to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation wherever possible.⁵ In the United States, courts routinely direct parties to engage in mediation during the pre-trial phase of proceedings.⁶

Moving Toward Mandatory Mediation: The UK Example 

In common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom (UK), mediation has increasingly shifted from a voluntary option to an expected, and in certain circumstances compulsory, step in civil justice. This shift has been driven largely by persistent court backlogs, escalating legal costs, and growing recognition of mediation’s effectiveness in resolving disputes at an early stage.⁷ Compulsory ADR refers to situations where participation in a dispute resolution process is required as a precondition for accessing the courts or continuing with litigation, for example, in employment disputes, where parties must undergo conciliation through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) before filing a claim with an employment tribunal. Mandatory mediation, by contrast, is imposed by courts under the Civil Procedure Rules, requiring parties to engage in ADR as part of the litigation process itself. In both cases, refusal to participate without a valid justification can lead to adverse cost consequences, illustrating how UK courts use ADR to promote early, cost-effective resolution while preserving access to judicial determination if mediation is unsuccessful. 

The shift toward mandatory mediation in the UK has been shaped decisively by case law. In James Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023], the Court of Appeal confirmed that courts may lawfully stay proceedings or order parties to engage in non-court-based dispute resolution, provided such an order does not undermine the essence of the right of access to justice and remains proportionate to the legitimate aim of achieving fair, swift, and cost-effective dispute resolution.⁸ This judgment marked a significant departure from the long-standing interpretation of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004], which had been understood as limiting the courts’ power to mandate ADR.⁹ The Churchill decision has, in turn, informed the amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules effective from 1 October 2024, explicitly empowering English civil courts to require parties to participate in ADR. These reforms reflect a clear policy commitment to promote mandatory mediation as a means of reducing court congestion, controlling litigation costs and encouraging early settlement, while preserving access to judicial determination where mediation does not succeed. 

Integrating Technology and Legal Safeguards for Mediation 

There is growing interest in implementing mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms underpinned by both technological innovation and legal reform, aiming to provide accessible, efficient and fair dispute resolution. Integrating technical solutions with legal frameworks offers a promising pathway to achieving these objectives while addressing persistent challenges in mediation. 

Mediators facilitate agreements rather than make decisions for parties, which can create a risk of undue influence, particularly for weaker or less experienced participants. Traditional private, community-based and judicial mediation often lacks transparency and systematic oversight, making it difficult to ensure consistent fairness. Machine learning and algorithmic justice systems can support mediators by monitoring interactions, flagging potential bias or pressure and providing feedback to promote equitable outcomes.¹⁰ These systems do not replace human judgment; rather, they enhance procedural integrity, protect vulnerable parties and preserve the mediator’s facilitative role, ensuring the process remains fair and balanced. 

Digitalisation alone does not guarantee lower costs or fairness. Poor interface design, accessibility challenges and algorithmic bias can undermine enforcement. Although algorithmic systems may surpass human accuracy and efficiency, their use requires careful attention to ensure procedural fairness and achieve substantive outcomes, supported by user-centred design, robust oversight, quality data and technical expertise.¹¹ The deployment of AI in legal and administrative contexts must adhere to the ethical principles of accessibility, fairness, impartiality, competence, transparency and accountability.¹² Algorithmic tools should provide clear, understandable explanations, allowing parties and independent reviewers to challenge and audit outcomes. With these safeguards, AI can strengthen the integrity of mediation and other ADR mechanisms, making dispute resolution more equitable and responsive. 

In the UK context, integration with existing digital court infrastructure further strengthens the case for mandatory ADR. From 22 May 2024, parties involved in small claims disputes valued under £10,000 are required to participate in mediation through the HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Small Claims Mediation Service. This mandatory approach is complemented by a broader digital transformation: from 28 July 2025, eligible money claims must be submitted online using the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) or Money Claim Online (MCOL) platforms. By integrating digital tools into both the mediation and claims process, the UK is leveraging technology to streamline dispute resolution, reduce delays and lower costs, aligning with international trends in efficient, technology-assisted ADR systems.¹³ 

Further legislative reforms could strengthen ADR’s role in the UK’s digital justice landscape, as legal frameworks must operate alongside technological safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency, particularly when AI is involved in facilitating mediation. Standardisation of protocols, secure data handling and monitoring of outcomes are necessary to ensure that AI-assisted mediation is both legally enforceable and ethically robust.  

A Way Forward 

In conclusion, the integration of technological innovation with robust legal frameworks offers a compelling roadmap for implementing mandatory ADR in the UK’s evolving digital justice landscape. Rising cross-border disputes driven by digital commerce, social media and AI highlight the limitations of traditional litigation and the urgent need for flexible, efficient, and fair dispute resolution. Mediation, whether private, community-based or court-based/judicial, has emerged as a key mechanism, with the UK increasingly adopting mandatory processes shaped by case law, the Civil Procedure Rules and procedural reforms. When combined with digital infrastructure and AI-assisted mediation, such mechanisms can enhance fairness, transparency and consistency, protect vulnerable parties from undue influence, and preserve the mediator’s facilitative role. By embedding legal mandates alongside technological safeguards, the UK can provide an accessible, proportionate, and resilient framework capable of addressing the demands of a global digital society, reducing litigation burdens, and promoting trust in cross-border dispute resolution.

References

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 28 USC §§ 651–658.  ↩︎
2. Compulsory ADR (June 2021), Civil Justice Council. ↩︎
3. Consultation outcome: Supporting earlier resolution of private family law arrangements, Updated 12 February 2024, Ministry of Justice, United Kingdom. ↩︎
4. Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576.  ↩︎
5. James Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416.  ↩︎
6. Lyngstad, E.C. & Skjesol, I, Professional perspectives on characteristics of legitimacy in court-based mediation, 2025 Vol.63 (1) Family court review p.138-154.  ↩︎
7. Palmer, M. & Roberts, S. Dispute processes: ADR and the primary forms of decision-making. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3^rd ed, 2020).  ↩︎
8. Small Claims Mediation (2025), The Law Society. 30 July 2025. ↩︎
9. The People’s Mediation Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010).  ↩︎
10. Wang, F. (2023) AI Ethics of Online Commercial Arbitration in Comparative Perspective, Volume 18 Issue 2  Journal of Comparative Law  529-556.   ↩︎
11. Ibid.  ↩︎
12. Wang, F. (2025), Streamlining Copyright Protection: Leveraging Algorithmic Justice in Administrative and Civil Systems, MAIQS 2025.  ↩︎
13. Wang, F. (2025), A Comparative Study of Administrative Enforcement of Copyright Protection in China and Europe, Volume 20 Issue 2 Journal of Comparative Law p.785-808.  ↩︎