A recent High Court judgment confirms the power of the Irish Courts to order parties to mediate, even against their will.

Key facts

In a judgment delivered on 20 May 2026, Mr Justice Twomey has confirmed, for the first time in a non-personal injuries case, that the Irish Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to order parties to mediate, even when the parties do not consent to mediation. The decision in J Burke & Associates Limited v Patrick O'Connell [2026] IEHC 314 marks an important development in civil litigation in Ireland and reflects a clear and growing emphasis from both the Courts and the Oireachtas on the importance of mediation in dispute resolution.

Background

The case arose from what the Court described as a “classic small town Ireland dispute” involving an engineering company and a farmer. In this long-running dispute, the plaintiff company claimed it was owed fees of €252,004 in connection with engineering services provided to the defendant. 

With the case ready to be set down for trial following ten years of High Court litigation, and both parties on the verge of incurring significant brief fees, the plaintiff applied to the Court for an order inviting or directing the parties to engage in mediation, with a view to reducing legal costs before the trial. The defendant contested the application on several grounds, arguing that mediation would be unsuccessful given his firm views on mediation, that significant costs had already been incurred, and that mediation would add further expense when the matter was ready for trial. 

The Court’s decision 

Twomey J held that the Irish Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to order parties to mediate in the appropriate cases. This power is rooted in the Court’s power to control its own process in the interest of the efficient administration of justice.

The Court identified several factors in support of its finding. Central to its reasoning was the strong public interest in mediation as a more efficient use of court resources, as well as the Court's role in reducing the prohibitive costs of litigation. The Court was satisfied that directing parties to mediate does not breach the parties’ constitutional right of access to the Courts, noting that any resulting delay would be short and that mediation would, at a minimum, narrow the issues in dispute. The Court further held that earlier obiter statements by the Courts that mediation must be voluntary should be read in light of the significant changes in the law and practice of mediation over the past decade. The Court also relied on a number of statutory provisions in support of its finding that Irish Courts have the jurisdiction to order mediation, including:

• Section 15 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which provides for court-ordered mediation in personal injuries cases;
• the Mediation Act 2017 and the obligation on practitioners to advise clients on mediation before issuing proceedings, reinforcing the view that mediation is a first port of call and that litigation is a last resort; and
• costs sanctions under section 169(1)(g) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 where a party unreasonably refuses to engage in mediation.

The Court also found the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, in which it was held that the Courts of England and Wales have the power to order mediation, to be of persuasive authority.

Factors the Courts will consider

The Court confirmed that the existence of its power to order mediation is separate from whether the power should be exercised. Before ordering parties to mediate, the Court held that it must be satisfied that there is a prospect of resolution of the dispute, or of a narrowing of the issues in dispute. In addition, court-ordered mediation must be proportionate and must not significantly impact the parties’ constitutional right of access to the Courts. The Court adopted the non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in deciding whether to invite parties to mediation which were set out in Atlantic Shellfish Limited v Cork County Council [2015] IECA 283, such as the potential saving in time and costs. The Court further supplemented these with the factors identified in Churchill, such as whether there had already been a recent unsuccessful attempt at ADR.

While the Court concluded that mediation should be ordered in this case, as the defendant had written to the plaintiff before the second hearing agreeing to engage in mediation, the Court declined to make an order to mediate. The Court did note, however, that the defendant’s offer to mediate was conditional, and that it still might be necessary to order the parties to mediate. 

Recent developments 

This judgment is particularly timely, in light of the recent Practice Direction issued by the President of the High Court reminding practitioners of the need to comply with certain provisions of the Mediation Act 2017 (the 2017 Act). The judgment also follows on from a number of recent cases emphasising the importance of compliance with the 2017 Act, including V Media Doo & First Click Marketing Operations Management Limited v Techads Media Limited [2025] IEHC 430, in which the Court emphasised that compliance with the obligation under the 2017 Act to file a ‘Mediation Declaration’ before issuing proceedings is not a "box-ticking” exercise, and Byrne v Arnold [2024] IEHC 308, in which the Court reduced the costs recoverable by the successful party by 5% primarily due to non-compliance with the 2017 Act.

Key takeaways

This judgment marks a significant development in Irish civil litigation, and reinforces the clear message from the Courts and the Oireachtas that mediation is central to dispute resolution in Ireland and should be a first port of call where appropriate. While mediation will not be appropriate in all cases, this judgment underscores the obligation on all parties to give careful consideration to whether mediation could assist in resolving the matter or in narrowing the issues in dispute. Parties who fail to do so not only risk delay and adverse costs consequences, but also now face the risk of a court-ordered mediation.