Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Disclosure - I'm a mediator.
I'm not trying to persuade anybody here and I am firmly not of the view expressed in the opening words of the second comment above.
The question "why mediate if you have a good claim?" is a good one and often asked. I'm tentatively sharing a few possible answers - all of which of course are subject to the particular circumstances of the case.
1) Even good claims can turn pear shaped, the only certainty in litigation is the uncertainty.
2) The client might not want to go through the experience of a trial.
3) The client might want to resolve the dispute now and not wait for a trial date.
4) Yes there a costs involved in mediating, that needs to be compared to the costs of a trial.
5) The client may prefer not to fund the litigation (for cash flow or other reasons) even if they are advised they will get a proportion of those costs back if they succeed.
6) There may be an on-going relationship to be preserved, for example where established commercial partners are in dispute.
7) A mediated settlement is not limited in its scope to the powers the court has at its disposal.
8) The client may want a confidential settlement rather than a public trial.
9) The courts are now willing to apply costs sanctions against a party that refused to mediate solely on the basis that it had a solid case.

There is no general rule and there are other alternatives to mediation. It is up to the client, properly advised, to make their own choice.

Your details

Cancel