Rewiring Dispute Resolution: What Boards and In-House Teams Need to Know

Ireland’s reputation as a jurisdiction of choice for dispute resolution is well established. As a common law jurisdiction within the EU and with a strong Transatlantic focus, the Irish courts (in particular its High Court commercial division) have placed themselves at the centre of many complex disputes with an international angle. In recent times, this evolution of Ireland’s offering has continued with step changes to reflect the needs of business. The courts, the legislature, mediators, and the international arbitration community have moved toward faster, cheaper, and more commercially sensible ways of resolving disputes. For general counsel, risk officers, and owner-managers alike, this is a change in strategy, not just procedure. As discussed below, it has changed paradigms of how disputes are handled, with many now resolving comprehensively without the need for any court proceedings to issue at all.

What is Mediation?

Mediation is a popular and highly effective form of alternative dispute resolution. The parties voluntarily engage on a without prejudice basis, sharing information, positions and documents that cannot be used in any future court hearing, with an independent mediator facilitating settlement talks between the parties. The mediator does not adjudicate or reach any findings and is inherently neutral. It is a confidential, safe and constructive process by which its very nature allows for creative resolutions which are often not achievable through a Court hearing.

The Courts now expect you to Mediate

The headline development in Ireland is J Burke & Associates Limited v O’Connell [2026] IEHC 314, delivered on 20 May 2026. For the first time in a non-personal-injuries case, the High Court confirmed it has inherent jurisdiction to order parties to mediate, even where one side objects. While at first glance this may seem incongruous with the inherently voluntary nature of mediation, it is little more than a firmer line of enforcement being taken of the Mediation Act 2017. The dispute itself was instructive: a claim for €252,004 in unpaid fees that had already involved ten years of litigation, with the losing side potentially facing €300,000 or more in costs. As counsel put it, at trial, “There are going to be no winners apart from the lawyers”.

On the same day (signalling a measure of co-ordination), the President of the High Court issued Practice Direction HC141, reminding practitioners and litigants that mediation obligations under the Mediation Act 2017 are to be taken seriously and that non-compliance carries consequences. This did not appear in isolation. In Byrne v Arnold [2024] IEHC 308, the Court cut a successful party’s recoverable costs by 5% because its solicitor had failed to advise on mediation before issuing proceedings, warning that courts “may be less lenient in future”. In V Media Doo v Techads Media Ltd [2025] IEHC 430, the Court stressed that the required mediation declaration is not a “box-ticking” exercise and that proceedings must be adjourned where it is missing. In more extreme cases, this writer has had experience of the Court not granting a trial date in a fraud case where mediation had previously been attempted twice but had not been successfully convened. That was an extreme case but evidences the point being made.

The practical message for clients is simple: A party that unreasonably refuses to engage with mediation risks adverse costs even if it ultimately wins. This in turn has over the last nine years entirely upended the previously long-held belief that a party suggesting mediation is indicating weakness. In this writer’s experience, that approach has been consigned to the history books.

Ireland’s Legal System Targeting International Business

Ireland is also positioning itself as a cross-border disputes venue. Since 5 July 2023, the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 has disapplied the old rules on maintenance and champerty to international commercial arbitration and related proceedings, opening the door to third-party litigation funding in that space. For a well-resourced or capital-constrained multinational alike, funding a major arbitration is now a viable option.

Reinforcing that, in 2026 the International Centre for Dispute Resolution launched ICDR Ireland in Dublin, an international arbitration hub for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, supported by a panel of Irish arbitrators. With close to 1,000 US companies already operating from Ireland, the hub is designed to make Dublin a natural seat for US-European commercial disputes. This is a gamechanger and proof positive that the global legal stakeholders are taking notice of the positive pro-business steps being taken by the Irish legal community.

What this means for you

Build mediation into your dispute strategy from the outset, treat the pre-action mediation advice as mandatory rather than formulaic, and for international contracts, weigh Irish-seated arbitration and third-party funding as genuine commercial tools.

Sam Saarsteiner is a CEDR-Accredited Mediator.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.