UK’s Meditation on Mediation: The Singapore Convention 2019 and its Impending Ratification

Since 1990, mediation has resolved disputes worth some £195 billion in England and Wales, saving parties an estimated £5.9 billion along the way — figures later cited by the Lady Chief Justice in her 2025 BIICL Lecture. The Commercial Court Guide no longer even calls it "alternative": the preferred term now is negotiated dispute resolution (NDR), a rebranding that says as much about mediation's rising prominence within English procedure as any statistic could.

Mediation remains distinctive because the outcome belongs entirely to the parties. The mediator neither determines rights nor imposes a decision. Any settlement ultimately derives its force from the parties' agreement itself. Whilst that consensual character has long been mediation's greatest attraction, it has also complicated the recognition and enforcement of cross-border settlement agreements. That final qualifier is the crux of this piece.

A mediated settlement, unlike an arbitral award or a judgment, does not assure automatic international enforceability. In remedy, parties must invoke contract law when a counterparty across border declines to honour its terms. The Singapore Convention; formally, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, was conceived in 2018 to facilitate enforcement, much as the New York Convention did for arbitral awards sixty years earlier. Article 2(3) of the Convention supplies its own working definition, echoing the specialist one above: ‘mediation is any process, however styled, by which parties seek an amicable settlement with the help of a third person who lacks authority to impose one’. As such, it also remains a mode of dispute resolution flexible enough to be deployed at any stage of a dispute, and to resolve procedural deadlocks as readily as substantive ones — a stalled disclosure exercise as much as underlying claim itself.

The UK signed the Singapore Convention on 3 May 2023 but has yet to ratify. That, in itself, is not unusual. Many states sign years before ratification, whilst others never ratify at all. As of July 2026, only 22 out of its signatories have ratified the Convention. UK's position, however, sits peculiarly alongside its recent approach to cognate instruments. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019, Singapore's sister instrument for commercial court judgments rather than mediated settlements, followed the more conventional path: signed January 2024, ratified within six months, in force for the UK by 1 July 2025. Singapore, older and signed two years earlier, remains stalled at the first step. This piece asks why the wait continues, what the government's ongoing consultation process reveals about the shape ratification will take, and whether the UK's hesitation is prudence or drift.

The Domestic Mediation Ecosystem in England and Wales

Most jurisdictions with intensive commercial activity have enacted dedicated mediation acts within the last decade—Singapore, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and India among them. England and Wales have no dedicated legislation governing Mediation yet. That position, however, should not be mistaken for legislative indifference. Rather than governing mediation through a single statutory framework, it has been cultivated through procedural rules, judicial development and institutional support. The existing frameworks perform much of the functions a code would otherwise do elsewhere.

At the top of this machinery is public rulemaking. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee makes the rules for the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), the High Court and the County Court, with its annual reports providing a useful account of procedural reform as it develops. Its most consequential recent intervention followed directly from Churchill: with effect from 1 October 2024, the overriding objective at CPR 1.1(2)(f) was widened to encompass promoting or using alternative dispute resolution, active case management under CPR 1.4(2)(e) now extends to facilitating its use, and CPR 3.1(2)(o) gives the court an express power to order parties to participate in it. Rulemaking, in other words, has caught up with the case law within a year.

Alongside the CPRC sits the Civil Justice Council. While the former makes procedural rules, the latter advises the Lord Chancellor, the judiciary and the broader civil justice system on reform. Viewed together, the two bodies reveal that the development of mediation in England and Wales has never been left entirely to market practice or judicial improvisation. It has been accompanied, and at times directed, by deliberate institutional stewardship.

Below that sits the court-connected layer, that turns policy into operations. HM Courts & Tribunals Service administers the Small Claims Mediation Service under CPR 26.6, and the CPRC's recent reports record the continued refinement of the procedural framework governing court-integrated mediation. The 2023–24 report identified a small claims mediation pilot for the County Court. By 2024–25, that work had culminated in the introduction of Practice Direction 51ZE, establishing a pilot for the automatic referral of certain civil claims to a free one-hour mediation session. Neither pilot touches the commercial market this piece is chiefly concerned with. Regardless both demonstrate the state progressively integrating mediation within the ordinary administration of civil justice, rather than merely encouraging parties to consider it.

The final component is the professional infrastructure. The Civil Mediation Council (CMC), the recognised professional body for civil and workplace mediation in England and Wales, maintains voluntary accreditation and professional standards across the profession. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), one of the country's leading mediation providers, has likewise played a central role in developing professional practice through mediator training, empanelment and the administration of commercial mediations. Together, these institutions have helped cultivate a mature mediation market supported by established professional standards, specialist expertise and a broad network of accredited mediators.

This layered framework sufficiently evidences how the UK recognises and encourages mediation. The question raised in the consultation process of Singapore Convention is whether an already functional domestic ecosystem should now be complemented by an international framework governing the recognition and enforcement of cross-border mediated settlement agreements. Before delving into that question, however, it is worth considering the role played by specialist dispute resolution institutions in advancing mediation within the commercial disputes landscape.

Institutional Support for Commercial Mediation

The Mediation framework in the UK is further strengthened by sophisticated institutional support. Among London's dispute resolution institutions, the London Court of International Arbitration has developed one of the more comprehensive procedural frameworks for commercial mediation. Its Mediation Rulebook runs to fourteen articles, covering commencement, conduct and costs through to conclusion. It is built for two different starting points at once: parties already bound by a mediation clause, and parties with none who seek to resolve a dispute, whether ahead of litigation or arbitration or running alongside it. The Rules therefore accommodate different procedural routes by which mediation may be pursued.

That enhanced flexibility is balanced by due regard to confidentiality. Article 6.3 preserves the integrity of the private caucus by preventing the mediator from disclosing information received from one party without its express consent. Article 6.4 extends that protection even before substantive discussions begin by requiring advance notification of those attending the mediation. Mirroring its arbitration rules, the LCIA was among the first major institutions to incorporate compliance and data-protection provisions into a mediation rulebook. Their inclusion responds to the heightened regulatory and information governance obligations that now shape commercial dispute resolution. The LCIA has also issued recommended clauses for parties wishing to provide for mediation in future disputes, available in two forms: a mediation-only clause, and a clause providing for a hybrid med-arb model. In either case, the secretariat has indicated its willingness to discuss modifications to these standard clauses, to accommodate, for instance, party nomination of arbitrators or the adoption of expedited procedures.

The costs framework follows the same disciplined pattern. Since December 2023, the LCIA's Schedule of Mediation Costs has required administrative charges to be paid in advance, alongside the request for mediation itself, a structure that ensures a measure of concrete commitment from parties before the process begins. The mediator's registration fees and expenses are calculated on an hourly basis, with the mediator's fee capped at no more than £650 per hour. Where time has been reserved but goes unused, the mediator may also charge for it, on a scale that tapers according to how close to the reserved date the mediation concludes.

IPOS Mediation illustrates the same institutional maturity. What began as a modest panel has grown to more than thirty accredited mediators, handling disputes across four principal sectors: civil and commercial; family and business trusts; public sector and regulatory; and workplace and employment matters. Its most distinctive offering is ‘Project Mediation’, a model under which one or more independent mediators participate from the inception of a project, maintaining continuous contact with the parties throughout. The purpose is precautionary as well as preventive; the mediator works to facilitate ongoing communication and cooperation between the parties, positioned to intervene early should a dispute begin to form. IPOS supplements this with free in-house training for clients and practitioners, covering both the practical and psychological dimensions of mediation.

Taken together, the LCIA and IPOS illustrate an extent to which private mediation practice has developed independently of legislative intervention. Institutional rulebooks and provider infrastructure have already absorbed the considerations of confidentiality, cost discipline, early intervention.

The Road to Ratification: International Considerations & Domestic Consultation

The United Kingdom's signature of the Singapore Convention on 3 May 2023 represented an important policy commitment, but did not itself make the United Kingdom a party to the Convention effective immediately. Under Article 11, signature alone does not bind a State. A State becomes party to the Convention only after completing its domestic ratification procedures and formally depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This distinction reflects the cautious approach to treaty-making under international law, allowing States to complete domestic approval procedures and adopt any implementing measures before assuming international obligations.

The Government’s consultation response shows that ratification is accompanied by a series of domestic legislative and procedural issues that must first be resolved. Nevertheless, in its March 2023 consultation response, the Government concluded that it was "the right time" for the United Kingdom to become a party to the Convention, describing ratification as consistent with maintaining the UK's position as an international dispute resolution centre. The Government also recognised that ratification would require implementing legislation across all three UK jurisdictions, together with amendments to the relevant court rules to enable the Convention's effective operation.

Shortly after signature, Lord Bellamy indicated that ratification was anticipated during the following year, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and completion of those domestic measures. However, by September 2025 the Government confirmed that it remained engaged with stakeholders across the legal and mediation sectors on the Convention's implementation while reiterating its commitment to ratification once the necessary domestic framework was in place.

The consultation response also demonstrates that implementation raises a series of technical questions rather than a single policy decision. Article 3 requires Contracting States to enforce qualifying settlement agreements in accordance with their own procedural rules, leaving each jurisdiction to determine the procedural mechanism through which applications are brought. The Government therefore consulted on matters including the appropriate competent court, procedural gateways and the interaction between the Convention and existing domestic enforcement mechanisms. Most respondents considered the High Court the appropriate forum for England and Wales, while equivalent superior courts were proposed for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Convention itself raises several issues for domestic implementation. Article 4 prescribes the documentary requirements for establishing that a settlement agreement resulted from mediation, whilst Article 5 permits refusal of relief on specified grounds including incapacity, invalidity, serious breaches of mediator standards, public policy and disputes falling outside the Convention's scope. The Government's consultation identified a specific concern regarding Article 5(1)(e), observing that the United Kingdom does not operate a single statutory code governing mediator standards. It also deferred a decision on whether the United Kingdom should make either of the optional reservations under Article 8, including the reservation restricting the Convention's application to settlement agreements where the parties have expressly agreed that it should apply.

Against that background, the interval between signature and ratification appears to be that of procedural implementation. The public record indicates the commitment and continued support for accession in principle. What remains is the design of the domestic legal architecture through which the Convention would operate within the United Kingdom's three legal jurisdictions.

In Retrospect

The consultation process has gradually narrowed the issue. If the question was whether mediation has a place within commercial dispute resolution in England and Wales. That question has largely been answered through judicial development, procedural reform and institutional practice if not through demand by the parties themselves. The remaining task is to determine how an international enforcement regime should operate alongside an established domestic framework, and how the Convention should be accommodated within existing procedural and commercial practice. Those are matters of implementation, but they are also considerations for a jurisdiction whose mediation framework has reached significant maturity.

Looking ahead, ratification would not change the way mediation operates in England and Wales or displace the mechanisms already available to commercial parties. Its practical significance lies in reducing the need for parties to enforce mediated settlements through separate contractual proceedings in each jurisdiction, while establishing a common framework among Contracting States that promotes greater certainty in the cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements. Britain has largely settled mediation at home. Whether, and how soon, that settled position is reflected internationally is now the more consequential question.