What the latest clinical negligence data tells us about early resolution

As a solicitor practising in medical negligence, I often read market reports to understand how the sector is shifting and where pressure points are emerging.

The latest UK Clinical Negligence Market Report for 2025 offers a clear picture of where the market now stands, particularly in relation to mediation and early resolution.  

However, in my opinion, it’s also a reminder of how the figures themselves never quite capture the full reality faced by patients, clinicians and legal teams.

One detail that caught my attention was that since the service launched in 2016, more than 2,000 mediations have now taken place.

That number still sits alongside far higher volumes of litigated claims, although it suggests a steady change in behaviour rather than a sudden shift.

The wider picture of medical negligence claims

Law firm revenue from clinical negligence work is estimated at around £1.7 billion for 2024 to 2025, up by just over eight per cent on the previous year.

Claim numbers continue to rise, with more than 16,000 cases registered at the Compensation Recovery Unit.

NHS Resolution reports growth in both claims reported and closed, while total NHS expenditure on settled claims has passed £3 billion.

Each of these figures reflects families waiting for answers and clinicians working under intense strain. Against that background, the appeal of earlier resolution is obvious.

The consequences of litigation

Lengthy litigation benefits nobody, least of all injured patients who often need financial support and clarity as soon as possible.

In my own work, I do see a greater openness to resolving cases earlier than would once have been the norm.

This tends to happen where liability is relatively clear and where there is trust between the parties, built through transparent disclosure and realistic discussions about risk.

Certain cases lend themselves particularly well to mediation. For instance, claims involving delayed diagnosis, straightforward surgical errors or treatment failures with agreed causation often reach a point where positions are not far apart.

Mediation allows those cases to move forward without the delay and cost of court timetables. It also gives claimants a chance to be heard in a way that statements and pleadings rarely provide.

Is mediation dependent on timing?

Mediation does tend to reduce claim duration when it is used at the right moment.

Too early, and the parties lack the evidence needed for meaningful discussion. Too late, and costs have already escalated, positions have hardened and the opportunity has passed.

When mediation follows disclosure of key records and expert evidence, it can shorten cases by months or even years. That reduction in time can often be as valuable to clients as the financial outcome.

When is mediation unlikely to be used to resolve medical negligence cases?

High value and complex claims remain the area where mediation is least used. Obstetric cases are the obvious example, given their severity and the lifelong needs involved.

Barriers persist here for several reasons. The sums at stake demand absolute confidence in the medical and financial evidential picture.

Multiple experts, future care projections and contested causation issues can make early compromise feel risky for both sides.

There is also a perception that mediation is less suitable where legal points are finely balanced or where liability is strongly disputed.

The report also raises the looming question of fixed recoverable costs for lower-value clinical negligence claims.

While this proposal appears to be paused for now, recent comments from the Civil Procedure Rules Committee suggest it has not gone away.

Any move in that direction would inevitably affect how firms across the country assess risk and how cases are run.

Mediation could become more attractive in that context, although only if it remains properly resourced.

Should you choose mediation?

Mediation works best when it is seen as a problem-solving exercise rather than a tactical concession.

Early resolution should never come at the expense of proper investigation or fair compensation. However, it should remain firmly on the table as a way of delivering answers and support without unnecessary delay.

Mediation is not a universal answer, although it is a valuable one. When used appropriately it can bring balance back into a system that too often feels slow and adversarial for the people it is meant to serve.

If you are considering a clinical negligence claim and want advice on whether early resolution or mediation may be appropriate, please get in touch.