Sample Mediations

Claimant approaches The Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre contacts the Defendant, who agrees to mediate.

The parties each provide a brief (one page) summary of the dispute.

The Mediation Centre uses the summary sheets to select a shortlist of suitable business mediators.

The parties agree on the choice of business mediator and sign an agreement to mediate.

The Mediation Centre works with parties to produce briefing pack for the business mediator (a 10-15 page document with 5 to 10 key documents appended).

A one-day business mediation takes place, at a hotel or in a neutral party’s conference rooms.

The business mediator shuttles between parties seeking to bring them to agreement.

The parties reach an agreement.

Concerned by a high profile dispute, a shareholder of the Claimant approaches The Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre contacts both parties.

The Claimant agrees to mediate but the Defendant does not.

The Mediation Centre agrees to assist as an independent party.

The Claimant provides a brief (one page) summary of the dispute.

The Mediation Centre uses the summary to select a shortlist of local dignitaries willing to act as business mediator.

The Claimant agrees on the business mediator and works with The Mediation Centre to provide a briefing pack.

The mediator approaches the Defendant and explains that he is an independent party, appointed to mediate.

The Defendant agrees to talk.

After some weeks of shuttle diplomacy, the parties agree to a one-day formal business mediation (note – it is entirely possible for a second mediator, chosen by both parties, to conduct this. Often the parties are content to retain the original business mediator).

The parties reach an agreement.

Defendant approaches The Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre contacts the Claimant, who agrees to mediate.

The parties each provide a brief (one page) summary of the dispute.

The Mediation Centre uses the summary to select a suitable shortlist of business mediators.

The parties agree on the choice of business mediator and sign an agreement to mediate.

Because the dispute is a complex one, the business mediator asks to retain an independent industry expert to assist him with certain technical matters. The parties agree.

The Mediation Centre works with parties to produce briefing pack for the business mediator (a 10-15 page document with 5 to 10 key documents appended).

A two-day business mediation takes place, at a hotel or in a neutral party’s conference rooms.

The parties do not reach an agreement. They ask the business mediator and the expert to prepare a non-binding preliminary opinion on the case.

Two weeks after receiving the opinion, the parties negotiate directly and reach a settlement agreement.

• A dispute between a prominent technology company and an events company regarding the technology company’s cancellation of its appearance at an exposition. This cancellation caused a disagreement regarding the liabilities of the technology company, as the events company expected to be remunerated for this cancellation, however in the absence of a formal contract the technology company claimed that they were not liable to compensate the events company. This case was settled by ensuring that each party clearly understood the other, wherein the mediator employed a strategy of shuttle diplomacy, and the technology company agreed to reimburse the events company for the losses that were directly caused by the cancellation.
• A dispute regarding the ownership and operation of a multi-million-dollar family business following a divorce. Through mediation, it was possible to settle the dispute, which had been on-going for several years, by illuminating each party’s concerns and creating a clear channel of communication between the parties. Clear communication between the parties had not been possible due to the built-up resentment which led to their divorce in the first place, and therefore the introduction of an independent and neutral mediator, by allowing this, resolved the situation.
• A construction dispute worth AED 4 million between a developer and a contractor regarding delays in provision of certain materials. In this case, a compromise was reached through mediation, as each party was able to clearly express their concerns, as well as more clearly understand the factors that led to the delays in the first place.
• A high-value dispute concerning the interpretation of a contractual clause regarding specifications of construction works. In this case, the contractual clause relied upon was quite ambiguous, and therefore both the parties interpreted it rather differently. Once each party had managed to clearly express their interpretation of the clause in the mediation, the mediator was able to guide them towards a mutually beneficial solution, which was able to maintain their working relationship.
• A dispute arising out of a landscaping contract between a golf club and a landscaping company employed to maintain the grass, wherein there was an alleged breach of contract on the part of the golf club due to non-payment. This was resolved in a one-day mediation, as it turned out that the main issue within this case was a lack of information reported between the parties, and therefore once the viewpoints of the parties and information relating to the contract was clearly communicated, the parties were able to easily resolve the matter between themselves.
• A dispute between the shareholders of a company, wherein one shareholder had come under suspicion from the other shareholders, as they were under the impression that he had not been diligent enough in introducing a client who was involved in a corruption scandal, and that he may be involved with this client. However, through mediation it was discovered that the shareholder who introduced said client could not possibly have been aware of his illicit activities at the time of introduction to the companies, and therefore the situation was defused.
• A construction dispute between a subcontractor and a main contractor on a construction project, wherein the main contractor refused to pay final fee, as he claimed the works carried out by the subcontractor were not satisfactory. However, through dialogue in mediation, it was discovered that the main contractor had actually given the subcontractor inaccurate instructions, and that the subcontractor was simply following these and therefore the main contractor agreed to pay the final fee.
• An employment dispute between an employee and a manager. The manager wished to dismiss the employee because he was not happy with the employee’s performance while the employee felt that the manager was treating him unfairly. It turned out that the manager and employee had vastly different priorities regarding the way the work should be approached, however these had never been openly expressed between the parties Therefore, once this came to light, they were able to formulate a strategy to allow them to work together and set priorities in a more effective manner.