Why Are Disputes So Expensive – And Does It Have To Be This Way?

Disputes in England and Wales are often seen as expensive, particularly when viewed from an international perspective. For in-house lawyers that perception matters – it shapes early conversations about whether a claim is worth pursuing (or for a defendant, how to defend it) and whether another forum (to the extent available) might offer better value.

But cost is rarely just a budget line. A more useful question is why disputes feel expensive in the first place, and whether that is inevitable.

Not all costs are the same, and not all are inevitable. Some reflect the realities of complex disputes, others stem from how a dispute is approached from the outset and managed throughout. That distinction matters, because it is often where greater control over cost and outcomes can be found.

This article explores where the reputation for high cost is justified and where it is overstated, and how early strategy, proportionality and experienced judgement can reduce overall spend without undermining outcomes.

Why England and Wales has a reputation for being expensive

From an international standpoint, England and Wales is often viewed as a premium forum for dispute resolution – both from a quality and cost perspective. That view is particularly common when comparisons are drawn with parts of continental Europe, where civil law procedural approaches and expectations around cost can look very different.

There are understandable reasons for this perception. The English courts (and arbitral tribunals sitting in England) are widely respected for the quality of their judgments, the depth of analysis they apply and the way disputes are managed. In large, complex or high‑profile disputes, parties often accept that this level of scrutiny comes at a higher cost – and that, in the right case, it can be worth paying.

The tension tends to arise in disputes that matter to the business, but sit below the very top end of the value spectrum. In those cases, in‑house teams are frequently faced with a difficult assessment: does the cost of running the dispute make commercial sense when weighed against the potential outcome?

Is the perception always justified?

It would be misleading to suggest that disputes in England and Wales are not expensive. In many cases, they are. But that does not mean that high cost is inevitable or that every dispute will follow the same path.

Not all disputes run from commencement to trial over several years. Strategic decisions taken early can influence how a case develops, whether it narrows, and whether resolution is achieved earlier than expected. The system allows disputes to be shaped through judgement and strategy, rather than simply progressing on autopilot.

Looking only at headline figures, without considering how disputes actually unfold in practice, risks oversimplifying a more nuanced reality.

When high costs are unavoidable

Some disputes are expensive because of their nature rather than the way they are managed. Complexity invariably carries a price.

Typical unavoidable cost drivers include:

• Legal or factual complexity, particularly where issues are novel or finely balanced, or where complex and lengthy factual and expert witness evidence is needed.
• Large volumes of material, which require time and resource to review properly and to understand the impact of that material on the case.
• Urgency, where compressed timelines increase pressure and resourcing.
• High‑stakes or multi‑party dynamics, where decisions carry significant commercial or reputational risk, often spanning across international borders or commercial relationships.

In these circumstances, higher costs often reflect the work required to resolve genuinely complex issues properly. Attempting to strip those costs out artificially can increase risk and undermine the outcome the business is ultimately trying to achieve.

When costs are avoidable – and often self‑inflicted

Alongside those inherent drivers sit costs that are far less inevitable.

One of the most common causes of inflated spend is poor early decision making. That can take many forms: rushing to issue proceedings, taking tactical steps without a clear end goal, or trying to save money upfront by cutting corners on strategy.

Ironically, those approaches often make disputes more expensive over time. Lack of clarity at the start tends to lead to duplication, rework and late course‑corrections when it becomes obvious that the original approach is not working.

What looks efficient in the short term can prove costly in the long run.

Why early strategy makes such a difference

Early strategy does not require perfect foresight, but it does require clear thinking about fundamentals:

• What is the business actually trying to achieve through the dispute?
• How does the likely cost align with the value and risk involved?
• Which issues genuinely matter, and which are peripheral distractions?
• Are there any choices which can be made, on forum or approach, which may make a difference?

For in‑house legal teams, these questions rarely sit in isolation. They often come with scrutiny from finance teams and the wider business and are tied closely to expectations around spend and risk. There is a meaningful difference between committing to a dispute where the economics stack up and pursuing one that risks becoming disproportionate.

Clear early thinking makes it far easier to manage expectations and maintain control as the dispute develops.

Proportionality is about focus, not restraint for its own sake

Proportionality is sometimes misunderstood as doing less work. In reality, it is about doing the right work.

Costs tend to escalate when every issue is treated as equally important or when parties feel obliged to pursue every possible argument. Experienced judgement lies in identifying what is most likely to influence the outcome and concentrating effort there.

Knowing what not to pursue is often just as important. Choosing not to advance weaker points or unnecessary applications is frequently what keeps disputes focused, both strategically and financially.

Cost management is part of good lawyering

Managing cost well should not be seen as a separate exercise or an administrative burden. It is part of running disputes properly.

Disputes are, by their nature, unpredictable. But that does not remove the need for clear thinking about cost exposure and proportionality. Sophisticated clients understand that uncertainty exists; what they want is transparency and judgement about where spend is justified and where it is not.

That reflects a broader shift away from blunt cost‑cutting, and towards a more thoughtful discussion about value.

The role of technology, without losing human judgement

Technology, including AI‑enabled tools, is playing an increasingly important role in managing cost, particularly in the most expensive phases of disputes, such as those involving large volumes of material.

Used well, AI‑supported document review and analysis can improve efficiency, reduce duplication and help legal teams focus time and effort on what genuinely matters to the dispute. That does not remove the need for judgement. Decisions about scope, relevance and strategy remain firmly human, with technology supporting rather than replacing experienced assessment.

As adoption becomes more widespread and confidence in these tools grows, this is likely to be one of the key areas where cost pressures can be eased without compromising quality or outcomes. Equally, it must be recognised that technology itself comes at a cost, and therefore may not translate into immediate cost savings, but it can and will often enhance the quality of output in a way which brings greater value to clients in terms of strategic and operational outcomes.

From cost to value

Disputes in England and Wales are often seen as expensive, and that perception can make it difficult for in‑house lawyers to assess viability, manage internal expectations and retain control over spend. As this article has shown, while some costs are unavoidable in complex disputes, many are shaped by early choices around strategy, focus and proportionality.

The opportunity lies in addressing cost early, not through blunt cost-cutting, but through clear objectives, experienced judgement and a disciplined focus on what genuinely matters to the outcome. When disputes are approached in this way, cost becomes something that can be aligned with value, rather than a constraint that dictates decisions.

London International Disputes Week 2026

These themes will be explored further at our panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026. The session, “How much?! Strategies for keeping costs proportionate whilst retaining quality in complex disputes”, takes place on the morning of Thursday 4 June 2026.

The panel will focus on practical approaches to managing cost pressure in litigation and arbitration without compromising quality, drawing on experience from complex and cross‑border disputes. Speakers include Sean Adams and Tom Cox from our Dispute Resolution and Litigation team, alongside Maya Chilaeva and Stephanie Barrett from Quadrant Chambers.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

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.