The President of the High Court has issued a Practice Direction reminding practitioners and litigants of certain provisions of Mediation Act 2017, and other statutory provisions relating to Alternative dispute resolution (ADR). 

On 20 May 2026, the President of the High Court issued a Practice Direction concerning the Mediation Act 2017 (the 2017 Act), and other statutory provisions relating to ADR. 

Practice Direction HC141, which came into operation on 3 June 2026, is intended to draw practitioners’ and litigants’ attention to certain provisions of the 2017 Act and other relevant legislation, while emphasising the need for compliance and flagging the consequences of non-compliance.

Solicitors' obligations under Section 14 of the Mediation Act 2017

The Practice Direction reminds practitioners of their obligations under the 2017 Act including the obligation under Section 14 of the 2017 Act to provide advice and specific information to clients about mediation prior to issuing proceedings. Where proceedings are issued, the originating document must be accompanied by a statutory declaration evidencing that the solicitor has complied with their obligations under Section 14. In the absence of such a declaration, the Court must adjourn the proceedings to enable Section 14 to be complied with and the requisite mediation advice to be provided.  

Consequences of non-compliance with Section 14: Key case law

The mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 14, and the obligation on the Court to adjourn proceedings in the absence of evidence of compliance with Section 14 was highlighted in the case of V Media Doo & First Click Marketing Operations Management Limited v Techads Media Limited [2025] IEHC 430. The Practice Direction refers to the V Media Doo decision, noting Mr Justice Twomey’s reminder that compliance with Section 14 is not just a "box-ticking” exercise. In reminding practitioners of the consequences of non-compliance with Section 14, the Practice Direction refers to the High Court’s decision in 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 Section 14.

The Court's power to order mediation and adverse costs risks

Practitioners are also reminded in the Practice Direction of the Court’s role in encouraging mediation, including under Section 16 of the 2017 Act which allows the Court to invite parties to consider mediation, and to adjourn proceedings to facilitate the mediation taking place. Unreasonable refusal to consider or engage in mediation is a factor to which the Court may have regard when awarding costs and may give rise to adverse costs consequences. This reminder is particularly timely, in light of the recent decision of the High Court in J Burke & Associates Limited v Patrick O’Connell [2026] IEHC 314, in which the High Court confirmed its inherent jurisdiction to order parties to mediate. 

Key takeaways for litigation practitioners

Practice Direction HC141 is an important reminder of the obligations on practitioners under the 2017 Act and of the real consequences that follow from non-compliance and underscores the growing emphasis from the Courts on the importance of ADR in litigation. To learn more, please contact our specialist commercial dispute resolution lawyers.