Debt Dispute and Mediation 1
Mediation and Intervention
The Alternative to Litigation in Disputes
Roy Caligari MICM
Director, CBC International
Accredited Mediator
Dispute Resolution Service
Is your customer disputing payment of an account and you don’t wish to be involved in protracted and costly litigation?
Taking legal action for unpaid debts can be time consuming and expensive with no certainty of the outcome. Where a customer puts forward a dispute as a reason for withholding payment, the usual procedure is to commence legal action with all of the implications that this brings. The Courts have now introduced protocols and will enquire as to what action to resolve a matter has taken place before litigation was embarked upon and will be critical to both parties if no attempts to settle have taken place.
As an alternative to Court action we are able to act as an intermediary between the parties in an effort to bring about a satisfactory resolution to the dispute, thereby ensuring a speedy and less costly outcome. We will charge a flat rate to be agreed prior to the resolution meeting; we will also make all arrangements for venue/time of the meeting and prepare the required document pack for discussion at the meeting.
The amount of the outstanding debt is obviously a factor in determining if the ‘Resolution Service’ is appropriate and cost effective and we would not recommend this service for any liability amount below £10,000.00.
If you would like to know more about this service, simply click on the ’submit dispute details’ tab below and let us have some background information Or, call us and we will be pleased to discuss and provide further information.
What is Mediation? (show / hide text accordian)
- An alternative method to legal action for resolving disputes
- Voluntary
- Non-binding up to point of agreement
- Without prejudice
- Confidential
- Since Woolf reforms (CPR Rules) ADR can be directed by Court prior to hearing, and if parties do not co-operate can have costs awarded against them at trial
- Parties can attend with legal representation but not essential
- A resolution is aimed for on the day
How does Mediation work? (show / hide text accordian)
- Pre-Mediation steps
- Mediators opening statement
- Joint opening session where parties in turn air their issues
- Parties separate for private sessions attended in turn by the mediator
- Information discussed with the mediator in private sessions will be held as confidential unless parties give permission for disclosure
- The mediator is non-judgmental and maintains a neutral stance throughout
- Terms of agreement drawn-up and signed by the parties (legally binding)
- Final joint session
- Mediator’s closing statement
What is Intervention? (show / hide text accordian)
- A method for resolving disputes which is less formal than mediation
- Appropriate prior to any consideration of legal action
- The facilitator of the process is impartial but can put forward suggestions
- The parties can choose to attend or be represented (authority to settle essential)
- The parties remain in joint session which facilitates speedy resolution
- If parties wish to engage in private discussion they are free to do so at any time
- There is no requirement for presence of legal representationA resolution is aimed for on the day
How does Intervention work? (show / hide text accordian)
- Pre-Intervention steps
- Facilitators opening statement
- Joint opening session where parties in turn air their issues
- Open debate
- Negotiations for settlement
- Agreement drawn-up and signed (legally binding)
- Facilitator’s closing statement
Advantages of Mediation/Intervention (show / hide text accordian)
- Can preserve and/or restore an ongoing relationship
- Restores communication
- Control is maintained by the parties themselves
- Flexible procedure
- Addresses unreasonable claims and expectations
- Speedy resolution of the dispute
- Still allows the parties to ‘have their say’
- Cost saving
Why do Mediation and Intervention work? (show / hide text accordian)
- Defusing issues
- The issues and facts are ‘heard’ without strict rules of evidence
- Appreciating other party’s point of view can encourage settlement
- Common ground can be recognised
- A bottom line is found
- The dispute is laid to rest on the day
- The parties feel that they have ‘had their day in Court’
- Substantial costs can be saved
Why the emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution? (show / hide text accordian)
- Courts are now advocating ADR before legal action is commenced
- Court procedures are slow and expensive
- Litigation is stressful and time-consuming
- Court decisions tend to be limited to win/lose
- ADR is cheaper; quicker; promotes settlement; good for maintaining business relationships if this is desirable
What parties like about the ADR process (show / hide text accordian)
- Opportunity to state case without constraint (“the day in court”)
- Informality
- Lack of legal technicality
- Range of settlement options
- Allows for a variety of stakeholders to come to the table
- They control the outcome
- Cost savings
Why may lawyers hesitate to recommend ADR? (show / hide text accordian)
- Lack of familiarity
- Can’t see the benefits over litigation
- Doesn’t fit with adversarial tactics
- Fear of showing weakness
- Fear of revealing hand if not settled and litigation ensues
- Impact on their earning potential if case is settled quickly!
