UK: The Use Of Mediation In Construction Projects

Last Updated: 19 May 2009
Article by Nicholas Gould and Claire King

As part of the review into civil litigation costs being carried out by Lord Justice Jackson, Nicholas Gould and Claire King lead a research project conducted by The Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution, King's College London and The Technology and Construction Court into the use of mediation in construction projects. An extract from that project is set out below.


The use of mediation can no longer be said to be a new phenomenon for the resolution of construction disputes. Mediation has now been used, in the commercial context, for the resolution of disputes in a wide range of industry sectors both before the commencement of and during formal proceedings. It can of course be used, in theory, at any stage not just during litigation but during or when other forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, are contemplated or progressing.

The use of mediation within contracts or as part of a dispute escalation clause has also become more popular, not just in the construction industry but in other commercial sectors as well. A large range of dispute resolution techniques is available for use in the construction industry. Arbitration is sometimes still the default dispute resolution procedure, perhaps because it was originally included as the only procedure in the most popular standard forms of contract. Adjudication is now well established within the construction industry, and in other common law jurisdictions. Litigation of construction-related disputes has received special attention from the courts, originally with the establishment of the Official Referees, in 1998 renamed the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).

Existing Data

Some statistical data in respect of the use of mediation is available. In the UK, the Central London County Court undertook a pilot mediation scheme, commencing in April 1996. This was initiated as a result of Lord Woolf's Access to Justice report. Parties to litigation in that court were invited to attempt mediation on a voluntary basis (as a result, it was known as the VOL Scheme). The take-up was low, but nonetheless interesting.1 As a result of this scheme, an automatic referral to a mediation pilot project was undertaken for a 12-month period from April 2004. 100 cases each month were randomly allocated to mediation. Findings show that the settlement rate followed a broadly downward trend over the course of the pilot: as high as 69% of cases initially referred in May 2004, but dropping to 37% for cases referred in March 2005.

New Research: Aims And Purposes

There is, therefore, some useful data in respect of the use and effectiveness of mediation in the construction industry, and court annexed mediation services. However, the use, effectiveness and cost savings associated with mediations that take place in respect of construction industry litigation is mostly anecdotal. To address this, an evidence-based survey was developed between King's College London and the TCC. Working together, it was possible to survey representatives of parties to litigation in that court.

Parties to litigation in the TCC provide a good opportunity for a survey of a group with similar issues and interests. They have all commenced formal proceedings in the High Court in relation to construction and technology matters and will be progressing towards a hearing. Many of them will of course have settled their dispute before the hearing. Almost all of those parties will be represented by lawyers, so will be incurring legal fees and taking the risks of paying the opposing parties' legal fees. The obvious questions are:

  • To what extent do they use mediation in order to settle their dispute?
  • At what stage do they settle? and
  • Do they make any costs savings by using mediation, rather than conventional negotiation?

This group can be divided into two sub-groups: first, those that settled their dispute after commencement, but before judgment; and second, the (no doubt smaller) group who progressed all the way to trial, but nonetheless might have been involved in a mediation that did not resolve all or any parts of the dispute.

The research therefore focused on issues specific to those two sub-groups, with three main research aims:

  1. To reveal in what circumstances mediation is an efficacious alternative to litigation;
  2. To assist the court to determine whether, and at what stage, it should encourage mediation in future cases; and
  3. To identify which mediation techniques are particularly successful.

The objective was to collect meaningful data that could assist not only parties, practitioners and mediators in respect of the use of mediation (in commercial disputes as well as construction disputes), but also to provide the court with objective data to assist it in the efficient management of cases.


The two different questionnaire survey forms were designed for respondents in the two sub-groups, but also to reflect the characteristics of TCC litigation processes. The commonality between the two forms was to aid analysis and comparison between the two sub-groups, whilst allowing specific responses to reflect the peculiarities of those that had settled during litigation and those that had pursued litigation to judgment. It was vital that the second sub-group should be able to comment upon any attempts to settle that had not been successful.

Three TCC courts participated in the survey: London, Birmingham and Bristol. Between 1 June 2006 and 31 May 2008, these courts issued questionnaire survey forms to respondents. All the respondents had been involved in TCC litigation, receiving a survey form because they were the point of contact for a party to the litigation, either the party itself or a representative. A large proportion of the respondents were therefore solicitors, many of whom were familiar with TCC litigation. One form was issued where a case had settled; another where judgment had been given. Both forms asked about the nature of the issues in dispute, whether mediation had been used, the form that mediation took and also the stage in the litigation process at which mediation occurred.

For those that settled during the course of litigation, it was of course highly unlikely that they would have been involved in a mediation during the Pre-Action Protocol process. They would not have commenced litigation (and therefore have been on the record at the TCC) if this had not been the case, although they might have held a mediation before which did not result in the case settling. However, those that progressed to a judgment could have attempted a mediation before the commencement of litigation. The completed survey forms were then returned to the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution at King's College London, where they were collated.

The TCC gathers some statistics in respect of the work that it carries out. However, the TCC's reporting period runs from 1 October to 30 September, so statistics are not directly available for the same period as covered by the survey. It is possible nonetheless to estimate from the TCC's two most recent Annual Reports (2006 and 2007) the approximate number of cases commenced during this period. These suggest that approximately 1,136 cases were commenced in the three courts during the survey period. The number of cases concluded during the survey period would not be precisely the same, but the figures would no doubt be very similar. In addition, there would also be a substantial overlap between the 12-month period in any event. Further, not all of the TCC cases necessarily reached a reportable conclusion for the purposes of the survey. For example, a claim form might be issued, but not pursued; there might be judgment in default of acknowledgment of service; or the parties might simply have resolved their dispute without taking any further action. In this last case, there must of course have been some level of negotiation.

A further characteristic of the distinction between the number of cases identified in the TCC's Annual Reports and the number of cases to which the survey responses relate derives from the timing. The TCC counts cases commenced in the court; but the survey focuses on cases that have settled. The time period between commencement and judgment is now quite short in the TCC when compared to other courts: typically now only 12 months. However, some cases will take longer, quite simply because the parties and those involved in the case require the time. On the other hand, enforcement of an adjudicator's decision can be dealt with extremely quickly. Clearly, not all the cases commenced in a 12-month period will be neatly resolved within the same period. Some will be settled within a very short period of weeks, while others may take many years. So the survey period, covering cases that had settled or received judgment, included ones where the original action in the TCC had been begun many years before the survey started.

Adjusting the TCC figure of 1,136 to take these factors into account leads to approximately 800 cases concluded in the London, Birmingham and Bristol TCCs during the 24-month survey period. There will be at least two parties for each case, so during the survey period there were at least 1,600 parties (claimants, defendants and third parties) progressing through the TCC.

The number of responses received was 261, 221 responses to Form 1 and 40 to Form 2. The number of each category of response is in proportion to the size of each sub-group. More than 90% of TCC cases settle before trial, so there were far more potential respondents to Form 1 than those for Form 2. In respect of the Form 1 responses, 25 were discounted as they had been spoiled or incorrectly completed. This resulted in a very good response rate of almost 17%, against a projected population of around 1,600 (there must in fact have been more than 1,600, because some of the matters would have more than two parties).

Analysis And Discussion

Before considering mediation in particular, the nature of the issues in dispute between the parties is of interest. The list of issues reported in Forms 1 and 2 was almost identical to those of an earlier survey carried out in 1997, reported in 1999. That survey sought to gather data about the types of dispute resolution techniques being used by the construction industry, in particular ADR, before the introduction of adjudication. It is possible to compare the responses, although some adjustments are needed in order to show a meaningful comparison. First, the original survey collated information about negative and positive experiences with dispute resolution, and so the aggregate of those figures is taken in order to compare those figures to the most recent survey. There was of course a different number of respondents, and those responding to the earlier survey were from a broader background. Nonetheless, a comparison of the following six key issues in dispute can be made:

  1. Changes in the scope of works;
  2. Project delays;
  3. Differing site conditions;
  4. Payment issues;
  5. Defective work or products; and
  6. Design issues.

Adjusting the 1999 survey report figures in order to compare an average of 100 of those responses against an average of 100 responses from the most recent survey provides a simple way to compare the results. The results are set out in Chart 32 below:

Chart 1: Types of issue from 1997 survey, compared with those from present survey

Clearly, the number of disputes in respect of payment has remained at a similar level whilst those relating to defective work have increased, as have disputes relating to design. However, issues about changes in the scope of works have halved, as have disputes dealing with delays, while disputes relating to differing site conditions are also now substantially reduced. Regardless of any abnormalities caused by adjusting the figures, it seems clear that the court appears to be dealing with fewer disputes which relate to changes in the scope of works, project delays and site conditions than those that generally arising ten years ago.

One obvious explanation is that adjudication, introduced shortly after the conclusion of the older survey, is now dealing with delays, variations and site condition issues, while defects and designs are more likely to find their way to the court. A line diagram showing perhaps more clearly the differences between the two survey results appears at Chart 33.

Chart 2: Further analysis of differences between types of case in the two surveys

Grouping the most frequently encountered issues referred to the TCC for resolution, it was clear that defects (18%) was the most common category of case, closely followed by a second group comprising payment issues (13%), design issues (12%), professional negligence (13%) and property damages (13%). Change to the scope of works, delays and differing site conditions were now less likely to become matters that the TCC dealt with.

Taken as a whole, the data derived from the various surveys charting the use of mediation over the years (both court-annexed mediation and 'free standing' mediation), show how it has been transformed from a novel idea into its current position as an indispensible tool for construction litigators.


In terms of the timing for mediation, the parties did not wait until the hearing was imminent before trying and settle the dispute. Successful mediations were mainly carried out during exchange of pleadings or as a result of disclosure. Having said this, there were still a substantial number of respondents who mediated shortly before trial. A timetable leading to the hearing should therefore allow sufficient flexibility for a mediation along the way. Ultimately, it is perhaps best to leave the timing of an attempt to mediation to the parties' advisors, especially where they are sophisticated and commercial advisors such as practise in the TCC.

Summary And Conclusions

The completed survey forms provide an interesting insight into the types of claim being dealt with by the TCC. The TCC Annual Report 2006 does not provide an indication of the number of payment disputes coming before the court; our survey indicates that a surprisingly low number of typical mainstream construction disputes (variations, delays and site conditions) now do so, suggesting that adjudication is successful in settling such disputes promptly. However, the percentage of payment disputes increases from 18% of claims for which settlement was reached prior to judgment to 21% where no settlement was reached prior to judgment. Arguably, payment claims that do not get resolved by adjudication are less likely to settle by negotiation or mediation after the commencement of TCC proceedings, so are more likely to result in a hearing and be resolved by the court giving a judgment.

The number of defects claims being dealt with by the TCC is also high (18% for both Forms 1 and 2), suggesting that the courts are better placed to deal with such claims (which often require extensive expert evidence) than adjudication. Design issues, also technically complex, represented 13% of Form 1 cases and 12% of Form 2 cases.

Where a settlement was reached prior to judgment, the most successful method used was conventional negotiation, not mediation. That said, the majority of respondents who had used mediation said it resulted in a settlement. Even where the mediation did not result in a settlement it was not always viewed negatively.

Mediation was undertaken on the parties' own initiative in the vast majority of cases. Of the successful mediations only 22% were undertaken as a result of the court suggesting it or due to an order of the court. Even where mediation was unsuccessful, 91% occurred as a result of the parties' own initiative: only 1 out of 11 unsuccessful mediations was ordered by the court. This suggests that the incentives to consider mediation provided for by the CPR (namely, costs sanctions) are effective; and that those advising the parties to construction disputes now routinely consider mediation to try and bring about a resolution of the dispute.

The cost savings attributed to successful mediations were also significant, providing a real incentive for parties to consider mediation. Only 15% resulted in savings of between zero and £25,000. 76% resulted in cost savings of over £25,000, with 9% saving over £300,000. The cost savings were generally proportional to the cost of the mediation itself with greater cost savings being found the higher the costs of the mediation were. This may be an indication that high value claims spend more money on the mediation itself presumably because they realise that the potential savings resulting from the mediation will be higher.

The parties themselves generally decided to mediate their disputes at three key stages: as a result of exchanging pleadings; during or as a result of disclosure; and shortly before trial. The results are similar in respect of mediations undertaken as a result of the indication from the court and/or an order; these tended to occur during exchange of pleadings (possibly as a result of a first case management conference), as a result of disclosure and shortly before trial (possibly as a result of a pre-trial conference). Of successful mediations, a higher percentage of respondents believed that the dispute would have gone progressed to judgment if mediation had not taken place when this was undertaken during exchange of pleadings and shortly before trial. This suggests that mediation may have been comparatively more successful at these stages.

The vast majority of mediators were legally qualified; only 16% were construction professionals. The uptake for the TCC Court Settlement Process appears very limited; only five respondents stated that they had used it, though these five experiences resulted in settlement. The general lack of enthusiasm suggests that the TCC may not encourage much additional 'business' in the long term by offering the service.

Unsuccessful mediations used a range of mediators similar to those in successful mediations, so conclusions are hard to draw about what type of mediator is most likely to result in success.. What is clear is that the parties generally opt for legally qualified mediators, perhaps diminishing the strength of the arguments for greater regulation of mediators and supporting the market-based approach adopted by the recent EC Mediation Directive.

For the vast majority of mediations, the parties were able to agree between them on the mediator to appoint; appointing bodies were only used by 20% of respondents. There was also a tendency to use the same mediators again, suggesting a comparatively mature market, parties' advisors suggesting well-known mediators within the construction disputes field.

To read a full version of the report please click here.


1. This includes 9% of respondents, who did not answer this question.

To see further articles on matters relating to construction, engineering and energy projects, please visit

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Nicholas Gould
Claire King
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.