Nature of the Conflict

This matter involved a dispute between a real estate developer and one of its suppliers concerning

alleged unpaid invoices. The dispute had already escalated into formal court proceedings, with both

parties firmly positioned in adversarial roles.

‍

At its core, the disagreement was not limited to the quantum of outstanding payments. It was

compounded by:

 differing interpretations of contractual obligations

 a breakdown in prior settlement discussions

 and a deterioration of the commercial relationship

Importantly, both parties operated within the same sector, and despite the dispute, there remained

potential for future business collaboration, though this was not initially acknowledged.

‍

How the Mediation Process Was Conducted

The mediation was conducted over three structured sessions, each reflecting a shift in dynamics,

participation, and ultimately, progress.

‍

Session 1: Procedural Engagement Without Substantive Movement

The first session was attended primarily by legal representatives:

 external counsel for one party

 in-house and external counsel for the other

From the outset, it became apparent that one party’s legal representative had little intention of

engaging meaningfully in settlement discussions. This was evident in both joint and private sessions,

where there was:

• minimal willingness to exchange information

• resistance to exploring settlement options

• reliance on rigid, positional arguments

‍

This dynamic persisted notwithstanding that, during the preparation stage, the mediator had

confirmed that all participants held authority to settle. In practice, however, it became clear that

while the representatives possessed formal legal authority (power of attorney), they did not have

the necessary commercial mandate to negotiate and conclude a settlement.

During this session, the defendant advanced a financial offer. However, the decision-making

authority rested with the client, who, when consulted, rejected the proposal outright.

At this stage, the process reached an early impasse.

Recognising this, the mediator identified a critical structural issue:

The absence of the right people, specifically the principals and decision-makers, was preventing any

meaningful progress.

‍

The mediator therefore adopted a strategic intervention:

 pausing the process rather than forcing movement

 recommending the attendance of principals with full settlement authority

This reflects a core mediation principle:

Bringing the right people into the room is often the single most important factor in unlocking

resolution.

The session was adjourned on that basis.

‍

Session 2: Reframing the Process and Breaking the Impasse

The second session marked a turning point.

The principal attended, accompanied by:

 an external lawyer

 an interpreter

Following the mediator’s opening, a key process decision was made. The mediator proposed that

discussions proceed in the principal’s native language. This required restructuring the legal team, as

one lawyer did not speak the language and was replaced.

This demonstrated an essential mediation quality:

Flexibility in process design to enable authentic communication.

The session began jointly but quickly revealed significant tension rooted in previous failed

negotiations. The mediator moved to private caucuses to:

 de-escalate the situation

 allow candid expression

 better understand underlying interests

During caucus:

 The defendant authorised disclosure of its position and calculations.

 The claimant initially rejected this and maintained a litigation stance.

At this point, the mediator applied impasse-breaking strategy, including:

 reality testing (time, cost, litigation risk)

 encouraging reassessment of records after 18 months of dispute

 reframing the discussion from positions to evidence

The claimant agreed to review its position.

In response, the defendant agreed to disclose detailed supporting documentation, thereby

increasing transparency and shifting the discussion from positions and assertions to an evidence-

based dialogue. Notably, this material had previously been withheld for use in litigation, making its

disclosure a significant turning point.

A Critical Breakthrough: Addressing the Real Issue

Before adjourning, the mediator invited final reflections.

This led to a pivotal moment.

The claimant clarified that the core issue extended beyond financial considerations and was rooted

in dissatisfaction with how he had been treated during prior negotiations. This marked a critical

cultural turning point in the mediation.

Cultural considerations in this context went far beyond language alone. While interpretation had

been available, it became evident that personal messages, particularly those carrying emotion,

context, and nuance, are far more effectively expressed in one’s own language. Once the claimant

spoke directly, rather than through an interpreter, the depth of his concerns became fully

understood.

This shift enabled a more authentic exchange. It was at this stage that real understanding began to

emerge, as the parties were able to engage not only with the substance of the dispute, but with the

underlying human and relational dimensions that had previously remained obscured.

The defendant acknowledged this and responded constructively.

This moment:

 diffused long-standing tension

 rebuilt a degree of trust

 shifted the dynamic from adversarial to problem-solving

It also reinforced a key mediation truth:

Disputes are rarely only about money or legal rights, even if that is how they first present.

The parties began to recognise:

 their shared industry position

 the possibility of future collaboration

Importantly, claimant’s counsel confirmed:

resolving the relational issue was essential for settlement.

The defendant then presented a revised, structured and evidenced offer.

‍

Session 3: Convergence and Resolution

By the third session, the tone had fundamentally shifted.

The parties returned with:

 clearer understanding

 reduced emotional tension

 increased trust in the process

The claimant accepted the defendant’s offer.

The dispute was resolved, and court proceedings were withdrawn.

‍

Key Tools, Strategies and Principles

Several mediation elements proved decisive:

1. Bringing the Right People

 Attendance of principals and decision-makers

 Ensuring authority to settle

 Moving beyond purely legal representation

2. Managing Impasse Strategically

 Recognising early deadlock

 Pausing rather than forcing progress

 Using phased engagement to unlock movement

3. Patience and Process Discipline

 Allowing the process to evolve over multiple sessions

 Avoiding premature pressure to settle

 Trusting that progress is often non-linear

4. Trusting the Mediation Process

 Building confidence incrementally

 Allowing disclosure at the right time

 Creating a safe environment for candid dialogue

5. Flexibility

 Adapting language and structure

 Adjusting participants

 Responding dynamically to party needs

6. Reality Testing

 Litigation risk analysis

 Time and cost considerations

 Evidentiary weaknesses

7. Transparency and Information Exchange

 Gradual disclosure of key documents

 Moving from assertion to substantiation

8. Addressing Human and Relational Factors

 Acknowledging emotional drivers

 Repairing communication breakdowns

 Reframing the dispute

‍

Outcome and Impact

The mediation resulted in:

 a full and final settlement

 withdrawal of court proceedings

 restoration of a workable commercial relationship

More importantly, it achieved:

a shift from confrontation to collaboration

‍

Practical Takeaway

This case highlights several core lessons for practitioners:

 Mediation is not just about settlement, it is about unlocking resolution

 Impasses are part of the process, not the end of it

 The presence of decision-makers is critical

 Patience and trust in the process are essential

 Legal disputes often mask relational breakdowns

 Cultural awareness can be determinative and, if overlooked, may become a critical barrier to

reaching settlement

‍

Ultimately:

Effective mediation does not force outcomes, it creates the conditions in which resolution becomes

possible.

‍