No.
Civil is different from criminal in that it is really the court deciding a private matter between two (or sometimes more) parties, such as a breach of contract, failure to pay a debt, claim for compensation for an accident and so on. There's no civil equivalent of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. Someone who wants to make a claim (not surprisingly called a claimant) has to 'go' to court and issue a claim (most claims now are issued remotely either by post or online), and then the claim has to be served on the defendant, who has the option to admit it or defend it. If it is defended, then it is up to the parties to collect their respective evidence to present to the court.
Normally, the court is unlikely to look at the strength of the claim and defence before trial unless a party asks it to. Most claims will get reviewed by a judge on paper two or three times before trial, but that is usually to make sure that the case is following the correct route to trial and that the parties are keeping to the preparation timetable the court will specify.
Because most claims are for money and relate to private matters, the parties can come to an agreement to settle before trial, usually by the defendant paying something less than the claimant has claimed. As PP has said, that's what happens in most cases, so they don't get to trial.
There are two kinds of Human Rights claims. If a claimant asserts that the defendant has breached the claimant's human rights, and wants money in compensation, then that can be settled in the usual way. If a claimant says that the law is incompatible with Human Rights, then that has to be dealt with in the High Court and probably cannot be settled.
There are some other kinds of cases where settlement is practically or legally impossible, but they are fairly rare and so I won't bore people about them.