​

* As the parties have come up with a solution jointly, neither party loses face. This is important if the dispute is between two parties in a continuing underlying relationship, e.g. two businesses who trade with each other, or an employer and his employee. An order imposed by a court or tribunal, may cause such animosity as to result in the cessation of any further business dealings between the parties or of the employment. This may be to such detriment to the victor so as to remove any real gain from the order.



* Whilst a judge is restricted to the judgment he can issue, usually that one party owes a sum of money to the other or not at all , there is no limit to the type of practical solutions that a mediation can provide. For example, in a dispute between a wholesaler and a shop over payment for, and the quality of, a delivery of stock, a mediation may result in agreement whereby the wholesaler accepts a reduced payment but, in return, the shop owner commits to continue to buy more stock in future.



* Mediation is much less costly than litigation, both in terms of the fees paid to lawyers and other advisors and in the cost of time. The latter cost will include the cost of the time that you will spend in dealing with the court action (meeting lawyers, gathering in the documents and evidence, attending court etc) and which otherwise would have been better spent in advancing your business or your earnings in employment.



* Since problems over capacity to pay may be addressed within a mediated solution, mediation may often avoid the problem of people who succeed in court only to find that the opponent cannot pay.



* Mediation is much faster than court action. No matter how much the courts speed up their procedures, court action operates under a timetable outside of your control and which has to accommodate cases other than your own. Further, parties can seek to take advantage of court procedures to cause delay. Resolving outside of court gives you more immediate control of time.