Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 115
Compulsory small claims
mediation update
by Emma Fuller, Peter Allchorne, Jade Batstone, Partner & Owen Manze, Solicitor
at DAC Beachcroft.
Overview
•
Particularly in claims brought by litigants in
person where requests to them for information
have not been satisfactorily answered prior to
the mediation, it is helpful where the mediator
can, as an independent person, identify to the
claimant what is necessary for them to prove
their claim.
•
A further e昀昀ect of the increased experience of
the mediators is that they are more prepared to
ask at the outset whether there are prospects of
a matter being settled within the call window
and if there are not, for example where liability
is disputed, being prepared to conclude the
mediation quickly.
•
Claimants are still engaging and, in some
cases, reaching settlements prior to a mediation
appointment.
•
We are aware of courts ordering claimants to
provide explanations of failures to engage with
the mediation process but no such cases have yet
gone to trial and, therefore, the e昀昀ect is yet to
be observed.
•
Where claims have not settled at a mediation
appointment, some claimants remain engaged
with a settlement process and agreements can be
reached post-mediation. This can, for example,
occur where it has been suggested to a claimant
during the mediation that they provide further
information to enable the defendant to assess
the claim and they have done so.
•
Of matters where the mediation appointment
takes place, approximately 25% of matters
handled by our vehicle hire and damage team
where liability is not in dispute, are settled
during the call.
Compulsory mediation in small claims cases in the
county court has been with us now for almost two
years, albeit that the scope of cases has varied over
that period and certain types of claim, such as those
involving personal injury, continue to be excluded.
It would perhaps not be unfair to say that, while some
theoretical bene昀椀ts of the change could be identi昀椀ed,
there was a prevailing sense that, in practice, the
downsides would outweigh any advantages, with
little positive emerging from the process. However,
it now seems that those who expressed scepticism
were, perhaps, being overly cautious: in our view,
the changes have been broadly positive.
Since the new mediation step was introduced,
experiences with the service have changed as
both parties and mediators have become more
experienced with the process. The following
are a number of observations gleaned from our
experiences:
•
With the vast majority of claims now being
issued through the DCP or OMC systems, there
has been a large increase in the number of
mediation appointments.
•
As a result of the courts listing an increased
number of mediations, lead in times are
increasing with most cases being listed with a
mediation date some six to eight weeks in the
future.
•
Mediators are becoming more con昀椀dent and
comfortable with the process leading to the
average time for a mediation to be concluded
dropping, particularly in cases where there are
limited di昀昀erences between the parties and
settlement ought to be achievable.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
113
JUNE 2026
