"Commercial Mediation Bill": Problem or solution?

Q: • Isn't this just another step in the process that adds time instead of delivering the finality of a court decision? Should the Act remove court involvement altogether?

- 

A: • That’s a valid concern, but it’s important to see mediation differently. Unlike litigation, mediation is not about rushing to finality. It’s about resolving the dispute in a way that addresses the real interests of the parties. When a settlement is reached through genuine dialogue, one that truly meets the parties’ needs, it usually gets implemented without any enforcement mechanism. In such cases, you may not even need a formal contract. But of course, in commercial transactions, a legally executed agreement helps to manage the risk of breach. And having the ability to enforce that agreement in court is an important safeguard. So yes, court involvement in enforcement is positive, but it should not interfere with the mediation process itself. That is the real power of mediation. Anyway, a 12-month period is given to obtain a Court degree. That’s sufficient time for self-enforcement.

Another concern is that if courts are positioned too centrally in the process, especially if settlements are automatically converted into decrees, it may unintentionally encourage mediators to rush parties (especially those with an unbalanced power orientation) towards an agreement rather than spending the time needed to uncover their true interests and generate meaningful options. That undermines the very essence of mediation.