High Court reaffirms the requirement on Practitioners to advise on mediation before issuing proceedings

The recent High Court Judgment of Mr . Justice Michael Twomey in V Media Doo & Anor -v- Techads Media Limited,¹ highlights the importance of practitioners complying with their obligations under the Mediation Act 2017 and in particular s.14 of the Act. In this article, Chantal Feeney, Solicitor and Jordan Muir, Trainee Solicitor review the judgment, which has reinforced the position that mediation should not only be a possible consideration before proceedings issue, but emphasised that litigation should always be the “last resort”.

The Mediation Act 2017

The Mediation Act 2017² came into effect on the 1^st January 2018. The aim of the Act is to encourage mediation as a preferred path for resolving civil disputes. It seeks to reduce the expense and time associated with litigation while promoting amicable outcomes. The legislation applies broadly to civil proceedings, including contract disputes, property matters and tort claims.

V Media Doo & Anor v Techads Media Limited

This case dealt with breach-of-contract issues in the digital-marketing sphere.  In his judgment, Mr Justice Twomney focused significantly on the requirements of the Mediation Act 2017 and provided a stark warning for practitioners that Courts will seek compliance, particularly with S.14 of the Act. The particular sections of the Mediation Act that the Judgement focused on are as follows:-

S14.1 – Solicitors Duty to Advise

Solicitors must provide detailed mediation advice to their client(s) prior to issuing proceedings. Advice must cover the key benefits of mediation over litigation, confidentiality and enforceability of agreements.

S14.2 – Statutory Declaration

If proceedings are to be issued, a statutory declaration must be sworn by the Solicitor issuing on behalf of their client confirming that detailed advice has been given. This statutory declaration must accompany the proceedings when being issued or before any further steps can be taken.

S14.3 – Mandatory Adjournment

This section obliges a Court to adjourn proceedings when originating documents are not accompanied by a statutory declaration as outlined in S14.2. Courts are required to satisfy themselves that there is compliance before the hearing.

In this particular case, to ensure compliance with  the Act, the Court sought evidence that a Mediation Declaration had accompanied the proceedings which were first issued however the Court was advised by Counsel for the Plaintiff that the proceedings had been issued without a Declaration. Later that day, the Court was  provided with a declaration that had just been sworn. Twomey J in his judgment stressed that providing the declaration at a later date “did not, and could not, retrospectively remedy the breach of the 2017 Act”.

Although there were no cost implications for the parties in this case, the 2024 case of Byrne v Arnold³ also serves as a warning for practitioners that Court can and will consider cost implications for parties.

In this case, Mr Justice Kennedy rose for a period to allow compliance with the Act and a production of a statutory declaration. He further expressed that “If such a failure to comply with section 14 were to occur in future, the court may adjourn a hearing (at the plaintiffs’ expense) and stay the proceedings until the obligations had been discharged”.

Both cases provide a clear message that the Courts will check for compliance and if same is not in order, proceedings will not go ahead.

Conclusions

These recent cases make it clear that Courts are increasingly determined to actively enforce the requirements of the Mediation Act 2017. V Media stands as a further compelling judicial endorsement of Mediation as an essential component in seeking the resolution of claims.

¹ V Media DOO & First Click Marketing operations Management Ltd v Techads Media Ltd [2025] IEHC 430

² https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/27/enacted/en/html

³ Byrne v Arnold [2024] IEHC 308