Mediation vs Adjudication vs Court: Which One Do I Use?

‍‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍UK law now leans hard towards "sort it without a full trial if you can". The Construction Act gives you adjudication, the Civil Procedure Rules push you towards mediation, and court is there as the backstop and the enforcer.

This section is about what each route actually feels like in the real world, not just the theory, so you can choose the one that matches the fight you're in.

1. The three routes in one minute

Very bluntly:

• Mediation -- facilitated negotiation with a neutral. No one can force a decision on you. Settles a lot of cases in a day or two.

• Adjudication -- 28-day paper war in front of a construction specialist who gives a "pay now, argue later" decision. Big for payment, time, and final account rows.

• Court (litigation) -- full, formal process under the Civil Procedure Rules, with judges and appeals. Slowest and dearest, but it's where you enforce or finally overturn things.

You'll often use more than one: adjudication to get paid, mediation to settle wider issues, court to enforce or mop up what's left.

2. Mediation -- when talking (properly) is the best move

What it is:

A confidential, without-prejudice meeting (usually a day) where a trained mediator helps you bargain your way to a deal. They don't decide who's right; they help you find a landing zone you can both live with.

Pros:

• Very fast to arrange -- often weeks, not months.
• Cheap compared with full adjudication or court -- typically a fixed day rate plus your own prep costs.
• Flexible outcomes -- you can agree payment plans, scope changes, future work, apologies, all sorts of things a court would never order.
• CPR now expects you to try ADR; courts can order or strongly encourage mediation and hit you with costs if you unreasonably refuse.

Cons:

• No guaranteed result -- if nobody shifts, you leave with no decision and you're back to adjudication or court.
• Needs the right timing and people -- if one side just wants to grandstand, it can be a box-ticking exercise.

Best for:

• Relationship jobs (frameworks, long-term clients) where you need to keep working together.
• Multi-issue disputes where money, scope and blame are all tangled together.
• Situations where both sides know they're sitting on risk and want to cut a deal before legal costs explode.

3. Adjudication -- when you need a fast, enforceable answer

What it is:

A statutory 28-day process for construction contracts where a neutral adjudicator gives a temporary-binding decision. You can run it "at any time" under the Construction Act and the Scheme.

Pros:

• Fast -- normally around 28 days from Referral to decision (plus prep).
• Specialist -- adjudicators are usually construction-savvy (surveyors, engineers, construction lawyers).
• Enforceable -- the TCC enforces decisions quickly in most cases, even if imperfect, as long as jurisdiction and basic fairness are okay.
• Great for cash-flow rows -- unpaid applications, pay less notices, EOT/LDs, final account.

Cons:

• Intense -- 28 days is brutal if your documents are a mess.
• Costly if you're not organised -- adjudicator's fees plus your own team's time can add up.
• It's "pay now, argue later" -- you might still end up in court or arbitration to finally settle it.

Best for:

• Sharp money disputes where you've got a decent paper trail.
• Tactical hits -- stopping LD deductions, enforcing payment notices, unlocking cash on a stuck final account.
• When the other side only responds to real pressure and deadlines.

4. Court (litigation) -- when you need a final answer or enforcement

What it is:

A formal claim in the Technology and Construction Court (or County Court for smaller stuff), run under the Civil Procedure Rules. Judges manage the case actively, and the CPR now bakes in ADR as part of that management.

Pros:

• Final, binding judgment (subject to appeals) -- not just "for now".
• Strong tools -- full disclosure, expert evidence, witness cross-examination.
• Enforcement muscle -- you enforce adjudication decisions here, plus settlement agreements and awards.
• CPR now explicitly lets courts order or strongly push ADR (including mediation), and punish parties in costs if they ignore that.

Cons:

• Slow -- often 12--24 months for a full trial.
• Expensive -- lawyers, experts, court fees; easily six figures on bigger disputes.
• Stressful and public -- judgments are public unless there's a good reason to restrict them.

Best for:

• Big, complex defect and design cases where you genuinely need full expert evidence and final clarity.
• Enforcing adjudicators' decisions when the loser won't pay.
• Cases where the law needs clarifying or a point is too important to just "split the difference".

5. A simple route-choice rule of thumb

When you're staring at a dispute, ask three questions:

Is this mainly about money, and do I need cash quickly?

• Yes, and the paperwork is decent → Adjudication first, maybe mediate afterwards.
• Yes, but loads of issues mixed in and you still want the relationship → Mediation first, adjudication as backup if it stalls.

How big/complex is this, really?

• Low to mid-value, clear issues → mediation or adjudication.
• High-value, structural/design/latent defects, multiple parties → expect court or arbitration at some point, with mediation along the way.

What does the contract and CPR expect me to do?

• Contract may specify adjudication or arbitration as the primary route; the Civil Procedure Rules now expect you to try ADR/mediation before or alongside court. Refusing ADR without good reason can hurt you on costs.

Most savvy operators now treat mediation and adjudication as standard tools, not last resorts -- and use court mainly to enforce or tie off the big ones.

Dispute route picker at a glance

Always get proper legal advice on route choice and tactics for bigger disputes -- this table is a steering wheel, not a legal opinion.

Disclaimer: SiteKiln gives you plain-English information, not legal advice. Talk to a solicitor before making big decisions on live disputes.

What to do next

• Work out what you are actually fighting about: is it mainly money and cash-flow, or is it a big multi-issue mess?
• If cash-flow is the priority and your paperwork is decent, consider adjudication first.
• If both sides want to keep the relationship alive and the issues are tangled, try mediation before anything else.
• Check what your contract says about dispute resolution -- it may name adjudication, arbitration or a specific ADR route.
• Remember that courts now expect you to try ADR (especially mediation) before or alongside litigation -- refusing without good reason can hurt you on costs.

Sources

• Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 -- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/53/contents
• Civil Procedure Rules -- https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil
• Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes -- https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_ced

Common questions

What is adjudication in construction?

Adjudication is a fast, binding dispute process under the Construction Act, decided in 28 days. An independent adjudicator's decision is enforceable in court. It costs less than going to court and you can refer a dispute at any time. Both sides usually pay their own legal costs.

Adjudication step by step guide.

How this site is funded →

Spotted something wrong or out of date? Email us at hello@kilnguides.co.uk.

In crisis? Samaritans 116 123 · Mental health support

How this site is funded →