Why mediation works

December 14, 2014
The UK's Ministry of Justice's website (as at 14th December 2014) sets out that "Courts should be the last resort for people involved in civil or family disputes unless there are issues around urgency and safety, eg in relation to child abuse or domestic violence."  

The Ministry of Justice, in describing mediation as a possible alternative to litigation, sets out that under mediation "
individuals concerned have greater control and responsibility in resolving disagreements than if they went to court. Mediation empowers parties to control the length of the process, the issues they would like to discuss, and the outcome. Mediation can also be less stressful, particularly for any children involved, and in the long run, can be cheaper than going to court."

The parties' greater control and responsibility in mediation are in direct contrast to litigation, where ultimately the decision will be made be a Judge, who has no personal stake in the outcome.   A settlement reached by mutual agreement is more likely to preserve relationships than a decision or sanction imposed by the Court.  This may be important of course in employment and family disputes, along with some commercial matters and disputes between neighbours.  By putting control in the hands of the parties, mediation allows them to air their grievances in a confidential way, without the risks which are inherent in litigation, particularly relating to costs.

The control of the outcome in mediation also permits parties in mediation to be more creative in reaching a settlement than a Judge in deciding a case.  A court for instance can not order an employer to provide a reference for an ex-employee, or order a party to provide an apology.

In addition to the factors referred to by the Ministry of Justice, I would suggest that additional factors contributing to why mediation works include:

  • solutions are often not based solely on law but on reasoned argument and business judgement;
  • mediation is flexible and can be adapted to meet the circumstances of the case and the needs of the parties;
  • unlike most court decisions, mediation is confidential and so parties can avoid the publicity caused by a trial;
  • mediation is quicker than litigation;
  • mediation is cheaper than litigation;
  • the mediator (as noted by Blake, Browne and Sime in The Jackson ADR Handbook (OUP, 2014, at page 130) adds a new dynamic to, and creates balance between, the different negotiating styles and personalities of the parties and their lawyers.  In addition, a mediator will bring their own skills, and their own personalities such as patience, an ability to listen, creativity, and impartiality, all of which can help the parties to review and re-evaluate their case, their needs and their interests.
The precise reason/s why a particular case settles at mediation will of course vary.  However the fact remains that mediation has a very good track record in settling cases, usually in the region of 75% to 80%.  In announcing the findings of the 2014 CEDR Mediation Audit in May 2014, Minister of State for Justice, Lord Faulks, set out that just over 75% of mediations settle on the day of the mediation and another 11% of cases settle shortly afterwards. 


 

When to use workplace mediation?

December 7, 2014
Workplace mediation is a voluntary process, usually arranged by the employer, where two or more employees agree to attend a meeting with an impartial mediator.  The mediator works with the employees in helping them negotiate their own resolution and create an agreed way forward.

Workplace mediation can be used:
  • upon the raising of a grievance
  • during or after an investigation into a grievance
  • after a grievance meeting 
  • before a grievance appeal
  • when an employee returns to work after a long-term abse...

Continue reading...
 

Workplace Mediation in Oxford

December 1, 2014
Workplace disputes can frequently be extremely damaging to an employer, with disputes often escalating quickly, and typically leading to lower morale, lower productivity, higher staff turnover and employment tribunal claims.

Workplace mediation is a voluntary process, usually arranged by the employer, where two or more employees agree to attend a meeting with an impartial mediator.  The mediator works with the employees in helping them negotiate their own resolution and create an agreed way fo...
Continue reading...
 

The difference between positions and interests

October 19, 2014
A position is a preferred course of action or a demand.  An interest is the reason(s) for a position or an objective.  A party's interests will usually consist of their needs, fears, desires and basic concerns which they are trying to satisfy with their fixed position.  There are often many ways of satisfying a party's interests, not just the one fixed position initially offered as the only solution.

Mediation attempts to identify the interests behind the positions, and find common ground at t...
Continue reading...
 

Telephone Mediations

October 11, 2014
Sometimes mediations may be conducted by telephone rather than in face to face meetings.  This may take place:
  • if the parties live far apart from each other;
  • following face to face mediations which have been adjourned;
  • to save costs; and 
  • in the Small Claims Court Mediation Scheme.
As with face to face mediations, the mediator will usually hold separate pre-mediation discussions with the parties by telephone.  

A telephone conference call may take the place of a joint meeting.  However, certainly w...

Continue reading...
 

WATNA - Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

July 1, 2014
WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is a concept developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Program on Negotiation.  It was popularised in their book Getting to Yes (Random House Business Books, 3rd edition, 2012).  The WATNA represents one of several paths which a party may follow if a settlement can not be reached.

Like its BATNA counterpart, the WATNA can be used to compare against the other options (including offers) available, to assist a party in making a mo...
Continue reading...
 

Indemnity Costs for refusals to mediate

July 1, 2014
In the 2014 High Court decision of Phillip Garritt-Critchley & Others v Andrew Ronnan and Solarpower PV Limited, HHJ Waksman QC awarded indemnity costs to the Claimants after deciding that the Defendants' refusals to mediate were unreasonable.

Pannone represented the Claimants and have recently published a summary.  The Claimants had offered ADR both pre-issue and after proceedings were issued.  Furthermore, at the Case Management Conference in May 2013, District Judge Khan recommended that th...
Continue reading...
 

BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

June 21, 2014
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is a concept developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Program on Negotiation.  It was popularised in their book Getting to Yes (Random House Business Books, 3rd edition, 2012).  It refers to the best outcome you can hope for if you fail to reach an agreement.  In essence it is about having an alternative to turn to should negotiations fail.

Importantly for the mediation process, BATNA is a way of measuring how good a deal reall...
Continue reading...
 

About Me


Stephen Wood is an ADR Group Accredited Civil & Commercial Mediator, an ADR Group Accredited Workplace Mediator, an ADR Group Accredited Online Mediator and a Consultant Litigation Solicitor. In 2017 Stephen was appointed to the Panel of Chairs of the Valuation Tribunal of England. In 2023 Stephen was appointed a Family Court Magistrate in Leicestershire. Stephen has undertaken over 100 paid mediations.

Categories