How Japanese knotweed sparked a major shift in Property Litigation.

30 Jan 2024
Bhavini Kalaria

Commercial Landlord & Tenant, Dispute Resolution, Property Litigation, Real Estate

Property disputes are a common yet complex aspect of the legal landscape. With the prevalence of property-related disagreements, the importance of effective dispute resolution mechanisms has never been more critical. The Churchill case last year has become a pivotal reference point in this context, highlighting the growing significance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) alongside traditional litigation methods.


The Churchill case, (Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 (29 November 2023) ( marks an important moment in property litigation. This case revolves around a property dispute where Japanese knotweed, originating from council-owned land, encroached onto Mr. Churchill’s property. The case is essentially about the rights and responsibilities of property owners and local authorities, setting a precedent in how property disputes are approached legally.

At the heart of the Churchill case are key legal questions concerning the extent to which courts can mandate non-court-based dispute resolution processes. The case challenges the previous reluctance, as established in the Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust precedent, to compel mediation.

The ruling underlines the court’s discretionary power in staying proceedings or ordering parties to engage in ADR, dependent on various factors, including the nature of the dispute resolution process.

Key Outcomes

The Churchill decision highlights a judicial shift towards embracing mediation and ADR in property disputes, indicating an increasing acceptance of ADR as an effective alternative to traditional litigation, particularly under circumstances that respect parties’ rights to a fair trial.

This development is especially relevant for public bodies, local authorities, and businesses involved in numerous small-value claims. In particular, the case sets a new expectation for property owners and local authorities that they will engage in ADR,  particularly mediation, before litigation in specific cases.

However, a critical aspect post-Churchill is balancing the right to access courts with the encouragement of ADR. This balance is essential in ensuring that parties have their rights protected while also benefiting from the efficiency and effectiveness of ADR.

Role of Solicitors and Legal Advisors in Navigating Property Disputes: In the wake of the Churchill decision, the role of solicitors and legal advisors has become increasingly crucial. Solicitors must now provide nuanced guidance, navigating the evolving landscape of dispute resolution and advising clients on the best strategies, whether it involves traditional litigation or ADR mechanisms. Specifically, solicitors will have a key role in providing guidance on the costs and benefits of mediation compared to traditional litigation is crucial for parties involved.

Many legal commentators view the Churchill decision as a precursor to further developments in how courts approach ADR and mediation. This is supported by the fact that generally, policy has shifted towards mandating mediation in specific types of claims, and the integration of technology into the process. Digital mediation and online dispute resolution platforms are becoming increasingly relevant, offering efficient and accessible means of resolving disputes.


The Churchill case sits alongside other judicial interventions and policy shifts discouraging litigation (such as those related to cost recovery), while encouraging settlement and ADR.

For more information or to speak to a litigation expert please contact Bhavini Kalaria at