Table of Contents

Introduction:.................................................2
Meeting peoples interests:..........................2
Control over process and procedural factors:
.....................................................................4
Post-dispute settlement period:....................5
Judicial endorsement of mediation, Court-
ordered mediation and Med-Arb:..................6
When is mediation more suitable than
litigation?.....................................................8
1. Business disputes:...................................8
2. Family disputes:......................................9
3. Workplace disputes:..............................10
When is litigation more suitable than
mediation?.................................................11
Conclusion:.................................................11
Bibliography:..............................................13

Word Count: 3055

1
 Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise
whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is
often the real loser in fees, and expenses, and waste of time.
As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being
a good man. There will still be business enough. Abraham
Lincoln

Introduction:

Mediation, one of the methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), is a form of neutrally assisted
negotiation process, where there is a neutral and independent third party who acts as a facilitator to the
dispute settlement process. This third party, commonly known as a mediator brings a new dynamic to the
bilateral relationship that exists between parties and helps the latter to present their case more effectively
to the other side. Mediators are usually skilled at calming and diffusing strong and negative feelings such
as anger or pride so that conflicts do not reach a deadlock. While mediation presents several advantages
compared to the traditional way of resolving disputes, that is litigation, its effectiveness as compared to
litigation is often put to question. In assessing effectiveness of mediation, factors such as the degree to
which the conflict is resolved and the possibilities of satisfactory outcomes must be considered. Process
dimensions such as interactional justice (I was able to express my own views) and procedural justice
(The mediation process was clearly explained) weigh less than outcome dimensions such as distributive
justice (The agreement is fair to me) and relationship change (During the mediation I gained more
respect for the person I was in conflict with) when evaluating whether the mediation was effective. Thus,
effectiveness depends more on the outcome rather than the process itself. However, the question still
remains whether or not mediation can be said to be more effective than litigation in dispute settlement.
This question will be further explored.

Meeting peoples interests:

2
The mediation process, as compared to litigation, helps parties to fulfil their desire of ending their dispute
but not at the expense of the dignity or future relationship - mainly commercial - of the parties involved.
Consequently, mediation prevents the disparaging consequences that disputing parties in a litigation
process often experience because of the adversarial nature of litigation. It has often been argued that
mediation meets peoples needs and interests on three central levels 1:

substantive interests: money, adequate physical resources, need for goods and time.
procedural interests: fair opportunity to put their views, the way the dispute is to be resolved and
orderly-mannered negotiations.
psychological interests: perceptions of trust, fairness, desire for participation, respect, acceptance
and other emotional needs.

In litigation, these three key elements cannot be addressed at the same time; the adversarial nature of
litigation process, whether in national or international disputes, impedes on the need to mutually address
both parties needs and interests. Mediation represents a positive liability factor: both parties give their
consent to resort to mediation for settling their conflict(s) and mutually agree to a common solution which
they both will favour. A wide range of imaginative methods are available for use to settle the dispute(s).
Albert Einstein appreciated the value of this arsenal declaring, Imagination is more important than
knowledge. Accordingly, the best mediators evoke imagination to come up with an array of possibilities.
Mediation offers solutions that profit both parties: We settle on $200 or we flip a coin and it is $500 or
nothing!
It is worth noting here that even if settlement cannot be reached through mediation, parties will thereafter
have a better understanding of each others case. Plausibly, this can also help the parties to narrow down
the issues and find a pacific solution even after the mediation has failed. Even when parties do not reach
settlement in mediation, they very often reach an agreement shortly thereafter as a result of the role
mediation has played in softening the ground. For example, considering the workplace, mediations
greatest benefit is its ability to foster workplace harmony. Thus, even if settlement has not been reached,
the employer will have a clearer picture of why there was a dispute in his workplace and will be able to
implement measures in the work environment to ensure such disputes do not arise in the future.
Employees have the opportunity to express their viewpoint and employers avoid costly legal issues.

Mediation offers a platform where parties can resort to brainstorming and come up with different types of
solutions, all of which are creative and will effectively and satisfactorily resolve their conflict(s). As
Dyson LJ said: Mediation provides litigants with a wider range of solutions than those that are available
1 Brandon, Mieke and Leigh Robertson. Conflict And Dispute Resolution. South
Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press, 2007, p88.

3
in litigation: for example, an apology; an explanation; the continuation of an existing professional or
business relationship perhaps on new terms; and an agreement by one party to do something without any
existing legal obligation to do so.2 This statement proves that parties to mediation, whether a local or
international dispute, benefit from definitive solutions which they cannot be granted in a litigation
process. These imaginative solutions will further be explored in case studies.

Control over process and procedural factors:

Litigation is a fixed form of dispute settlement: civil, criminal, commercial and industrial cases have their
own competent courts and standardised form of trial. Accordingly, the whole litigation process is dictated
by rules of proceedings and definite sanctions which litigants cannot contest. This might be cumbersome
if, for instance, the parties, prior to entering an action in court, had no conclusive idea of what their real
interests were. For example, in Mauritius, most people are not aware of the different means of dispute
settlement that are available, among which there is mediation. People have developed a mindset called
lit-think 3: the tendency to get into litigation mode at the slightest hint of a conflict. Lit-think is based
on the fear that the litigants will not get their fair share, that they will be taken advantage of, and that
ultimately they will lose something of great value. Afterwards, during the course of the trial, the parties
may realise that they may have rushed too quickly to resort to lawsuits and this could have undesired
effects. Fortunately, mediation provides a solution to such issues: the flexibility of the process allows
mediation to put control into the hands of the parties. This is equivalent to the parties having their own
day in court where they can effectively control the whole process themselves.
There are no definite rules of proceedings in mediation; this empowers the parties to constructively
resolve their conflict(s) without relying on others. Parties can themselves choose the venue and date to
hold a mediation session whereas in litigation courts summons parties on days which they cannot contest.
More often than not, lawyers can have several cases to be heard in different courts on the same day and at
the same time. If they are lucky, their fellow legal practitioners can replace them usually for formal
matters and not the actual trial - and present their case in their stead. However, it may also happen that
one cannot find a substitute or that one forgets to request someone to take over his/her case for formal
matters due to the daily stress of bulky legal paperwork. Most judges find it irritating that lawyers are
2 Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002.

3 Fazzi, C., 2002. MEDIATION VS. LITIGATION: THE STRENGTH OF WATER VS. THE
STRENGTH OF ROCK. Dispute Resolution Journal, 57(2), p.88.

4
absent during formal matters because this increases the agenda for the courts. In most instances, a judge
will dismiss the case if the lawyer is absent, hence causing prejudice to the client due to the lawyers own
mistakes. A flexible process like mediation allows a lawyer to set his own schedules, instead of being
bound by the courts calendar. Mediation, as compared to litigation, offers a forum where the parties can
present their case by themselves and the grievances associated within in a confidential process. This helps
them more willing to reach a settlement than to waste precious time and also to explore the possibilities of
creative and most-suited solutions. Therefore, in mediation, both parties find themselves in a win-win
situation which they both find satisfactory. On the other hand, in litigation, there is only one winner;
Judges impose sanctions on the losing party.
More difficulties and controversies arise in litigation in terms of procedural factors if, for instance, the
losing party was the true victim in the case, but due to unfortunate lack of constructive evidence and poor
skills on behalf of his/her lawyer or attorney, he/she loses the case. Litigation relies on evidence: he who
avers must prove it. Thus, victims of negligence are reluctant to pursue a remedy under litigation.
Contrary to this, mediation offers a pacific method of settling disputes where there is no absolute need for
evidence. Parties can rely on this feature of mediation to find an effective way of resolving their disputes.
Moreover, the cost and time factors interrelated with the procedural factor makes litigation a burdensome
dispute resolution method. In this sense, litigation cannot be said to be as effective as mediation for
settling disputes.

Post-dispute settlement period:

Post-litigation period can create a hostile relationship between parties and this may be prejudicial to
parties who were once business partners or even family members. Bonds of trust are broken and parties
can no longer rely on the other to maintain a diplomatic or friendly relationship as they used to. However,
mediation offers a consensual process which generates a mutual agreement. It has often been argued that
in contrast to litigation which looks to the past, mediation is an effective dispute resolution process which
focuses on the future. 4 Since mediation is a future-oriented process, it does not focus on which party is
to blame, and how that party should be held accountable, but rather: now that you (both parties) know
what happened and where each of you is coming from, how can your dispute be resolved in a way that
you can both live with? Hence, mediation is better suited to conflicts that require an ongoing relationship

4 Mediation v/s Litigation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4385
69/mediation-vs-litigation.pdf

5
even after the dispute settlement. Therapeutic mediators also emphasise on building a more positive
relationship between the parties after the mediation is completed. Often, they use the following
statement5:

My job is to help you talk about your concerns and negotiate a solution that works for both of you.
We can also look at your relationship. What type of relationship do you have now? What type of
relationship, if any, would you like to have in the future?

In contrast to this, Judges do not look at the existing relationship between the parties and do not ask the
parties their own views on whether they would like to maintain their relationship, if any. The adversarial
nature of litigation also causes more drawbacks since it mainly focuses on putting the whole burden of
faute on the opposing party. On the other hand, mediation can even increase trust between clients; the
consensual and non-adversarial nature of the mediation process makes parties respect the other and makes
them believe that they may even be able to work out future problems outside of mediation. Consequently,
litigation cannot be as effective as mediation if parties want to continue maintaining a professional
relationship after having resolved their conflict(s).

Judicial endorsement of mediation, Court-ordered mediation

and Med-Arb:

In many countries, courts have acknowledged and stressed out the importance of mediation in settling
both domestic and international disputes. Judicial endorsement of mediation has readily been promoted
by courts due to the flexibility that it provides. More recently, in the case of Faidi v Elliot Cororation6
involving a neighbourhood dispute, the Court of Appeal stated that courts do have their own limits in
finding constructive solutions to such disputes. In the case of Dunnett vRailtrack plc7, where the
claimants horses were killed on a railway line, the claimant was only seeking an apology and not
monetary damages from a senior officer. The court recognised that skilled mediators have the ability to
achieve outcomes that are satisfactory to both parties in so many cases and that such results cannot

5 Barsky, A., 2007. Conflict resolution for the helping professions. Oxford University
Press, p137

6 [2012] EWCA Civ 287

7 [2002] 1 WLR 2434

6
possibly be achieved by courts. Brooke LJ stated that the mediator is able to achieve a result by which
the parties shake hands at the end and feel that they have gone away having settled the dispute on terms
with which they are happy to live. A mediator may be able to provide solutions which are beyond the
powers of the court to provide.8 Moreover, in the case of Burchell v Bullard9, the Court acknowledged
that mediation upholds a high rate of successful outcomes and that this fosters an indirect benefit to the
courts by reducing bottlenecks.10 The court admitted that both mediation and litigation have a critical and
appropriate part to play in the administration of justice. For example, in 1991, North Carolina became one
of the first states in the United States of America (U.S.A) to adopt an extensive program of court-ordered
mediation available for use in nearly all civil cases involving claims of $10,000 or more. 11 The initiative
allowed the courts to require the parties in any civil case to attend a mediated settlement conference
(MSC) conducted by a certified mediator first.
Furthermore, in many complex cases such as family disputes, Judges encourage or direct legal
counsellors and their clients to settle their dispute(s) through mediation first because they recognise that
the points of law which the litigation process will tackle are not easy ones and may take too much
considerable time to adjudicate upon. Judge Ruggero Aldisert of the US Court of Appeals stated in 1983:
"The average litigant is overdiscovered, overinterrogated, and overdeposed; as a result he is
overcharged, overexpensed, and overwrought.12 Thus, lawyers and attorneys are encouraged to try
settlement through mediation before they move directly to trial by inserting the following in their claim:

Plaintiff hereby requests the Court to conduct a mediated settlement conference or to refer the case
to its court annexed mediation program in order to assist the parties to bring about a settlement of
this case.
8 Ibid at para 14.

9 [2005] BLR 330

10 Settling Out of Court:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/FINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/282044-
1307652042357/VP329-Setting-out-of-court.pdf

11 Metzloff, T.B., Peeples, R.A. and Harris, C.T., 1997. Empirical Perspectives on
Mediation and Malpractice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 60(1), pp.107-152.

12 Muller, F., 1984. Mediation: an alternative to litigation. Journal of the American

Water Works Association, 76(2), p.43.

7
Another factor that increases the effectiveness of mediation is the hybrid process of Med-Arb. It is the
possibility for parties to conduct mediation and immediately move to arbitration if matters reach an
impasse. In this method for dispute settlement, the mediator changes hats (or roles) and becomes an
arbitrator. During the mediation stage, parties are not expected to discuss relational or emotional issues.
The med-arbiter uses information gathered from the mediation stage to help inform the arbitrated
decision. In this sense, the mediation becomes an effective process of settling the conflict(s) since parties
are no longer apprehensive of information being used up in the follow-up hearing and this helps them in
quickly reaching a mutual agreement more easily.

When is mediation more suitable than litigation?

1. Business disputes:

Mediation is an increasingly popular and accepted method of resolving disagreements across the
international business world. Building on the effectiveness of the process, commercial contracts now
often include an obligation on parties to attempt to solve any disputes by mediation before launching
litigation proceedings. Indeed, mediation is increasingly adopted during long term contracts, particularly
in international infrastructure and construction contracts, where nominated mediators are brought in at
short notice to help the parties move round problems which would otherwise postpone or disrupt the
project.13 In the bankruptcy case of In re Quality Beverage14, a liquidation of a wholesale liquor
distributor, the United States Bankruptcy Court appointed a mediator to assist in the settlement of
preference actions, turnover actions and other adversary proceedings pursued by the trustees which
subsequently resulted in the parties effectively maintaining their commercial relationship afterwards.
Therefore, this indicates that mediation can be particularly useful where the parties wish to continue a
business collaboration which could otherwise be damaged by aggressive court proceedings. The non-
adversarial and confidentiality factors also help parties to find innovative and constructive solutions to
their dispute which might even develop their commercial relationship.

13 Commercial mediation a comparative review 2013. Accessed

at:http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Commercial-mediation-comparative-review-
2013/Pages/Index.aspx

14 181 B.R. 887 (1995)

8
Case Study 1.0

Clean World, a small and medium enterprise (SME) based in Mauritius has a contract with Lonely Globe,
a non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in Seychelles. Clean World is a producer of reusable bags
made from recycled materials. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the number of boxes
delivered by Clean World. In this case mediation would prove to be effective to settle the dispute for the
following reasons:
1. The parties will be able to preserve their commercial relationships.
2. The parties can conclude the settlement with creative solution such as an apology from Clean World
and replacement of goods in future shipments.
3. With an ongoing commercial relationship with Lonely Globe, Clean World may profit from the NGO
suggesting other similar NGOs instituted in Seychelles to form a contract with Clean World. This will
develop Clean Worlds status as a SME into a larger manufacturing company. Such an improvement can
also attract local business partners.

2. Family disputes:

People don't always think clearly when it comes to family conflicts, but there are several good reasons
why mediation can be effective to resolve such conflicts. Firstly, there is the confidentiality factor.
Mediators are bound to keep all information gathered during the mediation stage confidential and not
disclose them at any stage; this applies especially to information gathered during caucuses where there is
individual interaction between each party and the mediator. Moreover, many jurisdictions have passed
laws that provide mediation the protection of privilege. Privilege implies that neither parties nor the
mediator can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify in court. Thus, parties can separate their emotions
from factual information and divulge private information without any fear of losing face. Also, divorce
mediation offers an opportunity to develop communication skills with a former spouse that can be helpful
for years to come, especially when there are children involved. 15 Moreover, skilled mediators can help
parties reach a conclusive settlement in delicate matters such as custody of children or domestic violence.

Case Study 2.0

Ramsay and Sansa Bolton are a couple who were civilly married in Britain and have a minor boy named
Theon. Ramsay is a Mauritian citizen while Sansa, who is a world-famous actress, is a British citizen.
Seven years after their wedding, the couple starts fighting everyday because Ramsay has become a heavy
15 Palmer, N.S. and Palmer, W.D., 1996. Family Mediation-Good for Clients, Good for
Lawyers. Compleat Law., 13, p.33.

9
drinker and is committing adultery with Myranda while Sansa, displeased with Ramsays absence finds
solace in Tyrion, her personal assistant. Sansa wants to divorce Ramsay because of his misbehaviours as
she cannot focus enough on her career. In this case, divorce-mediation would be more effective than
litigation for the following reasons:

1. Extensive research on children shows that it is not the separation or the divorce that causes the most
emotional scars, but rather the degree of conflict between parents both during and after the divorce
process.
2. The mediator may conciliate the couple into not moving forward with divorce and they will find it
easier to look back at their agreements with pride and look forward to big events in Theons life, such as
graduation and wedding.
3. Sansa might like to keep private information such as her own affair with Tyrion confidential and secret
to the public because this may affect her career. This would not have been possible if they proceeded with
litigation because of open court proceedings.
4. Complex issues such as lexception de litispendence internationale would not arise.

3. Workplace disputes:

Mediation in the workplace offers a process that encourages parties to accept responsibility for their part
in the dispute and seeks to build a supportive and positive environment afterwards. During the mediation
process, both the employer and the employee(s) stand on a neutral ground: their positions in the
workplace do not matter anymore. Hostile workplace issues such as complaints of sexual harassment or
discrimination are carefully handled by mediators. This is beneficial for firms that have a reputation in the
job market; such matters are kept confidential and high-profiled firms along with their employers
continue preserving the respect they had prior to such conflicts. Furthermore, mediation builds faith in the
parties and others that conflict can be dealt with in a principled way and have positive outcome through
principles such as trust, accuracy of information or fairness of decision.

Case Study 3.0

Erza works as a part time accountant at Dr Grays DayCare Centre, a private clinic set up by Doctor Gray
who is the chief physician at the medical institution. Erza brought her son Luffy who was having trouble
breathing to the hospital for a diagnosis. Later that day, Erza is informed that her son has passed away. An
autopsy later showed he had been given an overdose of a painkiller. No one had checked on him and by
the time a staff member looked in, he was dead. Mediation would be more effective than litigation for the
following reasons:

10
1. Erza will get the answers she needs about her sons death and an apology from the head physician.
2. Achieving emotional closure may be easier for her in mediation than in an adversarial litigation.
3. If clinical staff members who were involved in the problematic care are present at the session, they
could discuss systemic factors that contributed to the issue and prevent such an incident from happening
again.
4. Erza will be able to secure her employment with the clinic and keep good terms with Doctor Gray.
5. Neither Doctor Grays career as a physician nor the clinics reputation will not fall into jeopardy.

When is litigation more suitable than mediation?

Mediation may be less suitable where a fundamental principle is involved which requires judicial
determination to set a precedent or interpret legislation, for example, a civil rights matter or judicial
review. Also, logically, mediators cannot handle criminal matters such as murder, rape, larceny or acts of
terrorism. Likewise, mediation cannot be effective when handling emergency matters such as a protective
relief in the form of an injunction, a writ habere facias possesionem or interim orders for custody of
children when there is imminent danger to the children. From this, it follows that mediation cannot be set
up to settle disputes where there is threat to the safety of a person, when actual physical and emotional
abuse has taken place and is the cause of ongoing conflict, when there is threat of or actual destruction of
property or when there is bad faith bargaining and mediation is used as a delaying tactic. Moreover,
mediation cannot be applied to international disputes whereby cultural differences play a major role since
countries have distinct level of political rights, civil liberties and different religion. In all these types of
cases, mediation would not be effective at all since mediators have no experience in dealing with specific
legislations and civil rights or cultural differences between different countries.
Generally, mediation will only be suitable where there is a rough equality between the parties. Inequalities
can result from differences in financial power, intelligence or physical or emotional control. Power is a
crucial factor to consider in mediation because a third party decision maker, such as a judge, is absent
from the process. Where a strong disparity exists, one party may force the mediation in a direction where
any agreement reached largely reflects their own needs and interests. 16 Where different levels of
sophistication exist between parties, it is arguable that litigation is more appropriate than mediation

16 Fiss, O.M., 1983. Against settlement. Yale Law journal, 93, p.1073.

11
because of the safeguards that exist in the judicial system. Such safeguards do not exist in mediation and
the stronger party may unfairly benefit from this.

Conclusion:

During these past decades, not only have caseloads increased but also cases have become more complex,
time-consuming and costly. All these factors are good reasons to choose to ADR, of which mediation can
be argued to be the best method. As argued earlier, mediation is seen to be most effective for almost all
disputes, whatever the subject matter of the underlying cause of action: contract disputes, business
disputes, consumer claims, neighbourhood disputes, family disputes, medical negligence claims and
tortious claims.

While mediation is a useful tool for courts and parties to a dispute, mandating such a process will not be
appropriate in all circumstances. Although it provides parties with a myriad of advantages that effectively
resolve their disputes, mediation also has limits. In cases of severe manipulation between the parties,
abuse and personality disorders, it takes a very skillful and specialised mediator to deal with these cases
and should not be attempted unless the mediator is experienced in dealing with those specific cases.

Therefore, like any tool, mediation is most effective when it is properly used. Often, this is simply a
question of timing. Parties with insufficient information, or insufficient motivation, are much less likely
to benefit from mediation. For better or worse, time may need to pass so that parties can learn enough
about their position relative to everyone else in the case to appreciate the advantages of settlement. To
make mediation more effective, both parties need to exchange information sooner rather than later. Even
so, mediation cannot possibly be used to resolve complex and technical disputes such as criminal cases
where severe sanctions already provided for by existing legislations need to be imposed.

As a concluding note, it can be argued that mediation is an effective method of resolving conflicts in
family situations, in commercial situations and in the workplace, but seeing it as a magic cure for all types
of disputes does it a disservice. It should be seen for what it is: a great tool for conflict management that
involves hard work from all involved.

12
Bibliography:

Books:

Barsky, A., 2007. Conflict resolution for the helping professions. Oxford University Press.

Blake, S., Browne, J. and Sime, S., 2014. A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution. Oxford
University Press (UK).

Brandon Mieke and Leigh Robertson, 2007. Conflict And Dispute Resolution. South Melbourne, Vic.,
Oxford University Press.

Articles and Online Journals:

Aibel, H.J., 1996. Mediation Works: Opting for interest-based solutions to a range of business
needs. DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOURNAL, 51

Carducci, G., 2012. Importance of Legal Context and Other Considerations in Assessing the Suitability of
Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation in Resolving Effectively Domestic and International
Disputes (Employment Disputes and Beyond), The. . John's L. Rev., 86

Denlow, M., 2008. Making Full Use of the Court: Come to Settle First, Litigate Second. Litigation, 35(1),
pp.28-64.

Ehrman, K.A., 1989. Why Business Lawyers Should Use Mediation. ABAJ,75

Fazzi, C., 2002. MEDIATION VS. LITIGATION: THE STRENGTH OF WATER VS. THE STRENGTH
OF ROCK. Dispute Resolution Journal.

Fiss, O.M., 1983. Against settlement. Yale Law journal

Folberg, J. and Taylor, A., 1986. Mediation: A comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without
litigation.

13
Hollett, N.L., Herrman, M.S., Eaker, D.G. and Gale, J., 2002. The assessment of mediation outcome: The
development and validation of an evaluative technique. Justice System journal, 23(3)

Howe, M.B. and Fiala, R., 2008. Process Matters: Disputant Satisfaction in Mediated Civil Cases. Justice
System Journal, 29(1)

Metzloff, T.B., Peeples, R.A. and Harris, C.T., 1997. Empirical Perspectives on Mediation and
Malpractice. Law and Contemporary Problems.

Mosten, F.S., 1993. Mediation makes sense: how to prevent an international crisis. Family Advocate.

Muller, F., 1984. Mediation: an alternative to litigation. Journal of the American Water Works Association

Palmer, N.S. and Palmer, W.D., 1996. Family Mediation-Good for Clients, Good for Lawyers. Compleat
Law

Taichert, R.D., 2006. Mediation is the best means of dispute resolution. The CPA Journal, 76(4)

Cases:

Burchell v Bullard [2005] BLR 330

Dunnett vRailtrack plc [2002] 1 WLR 2434

Faidi v Elliot Cororation [2012] EWCA Civ 287

Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002.

In re Quality Beverage 181 B.R. 887 (1995)

Online Links:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4385
69/mediation-vs-litigation.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/FINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/282044-
1307652042357/VP329-Setting-out-of-court.pdf

http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Commercial-mediation-comparative-review-
2013/Pages/Index.aspx

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1505&context=adr

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375557/pdf/jmedeth00265-0016.pdf

http://www.civiljustice.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=med

14
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lcp

15