The disadvantages of construction mediation

Written by Lyle Charles

Mediation is a process where two parties meet out of the court to resolve their arguments with a neutral third person, who is called the mediator. This is also a good option for construction cases that are not high on emotion and for parties who are looking for inexpensive, quick ways to come to an agreement. But in some cases construction, mediation can work against a case and here are some of those disadvantages outlined.

Reduce the chances of testifying and producing evidence – In a courtroom setting, lawyers will possess more tools to make parties testify and give evidence. However, most mediators will not push parties to produce evidence as they may lack the skills to do so.

Fairness – Courtrooms are designed to help both parties reach a fair agreement. Which means that if one party is strong and the other is weak, a court proceeding will try to restore balance. In mediation, this may not be the case as mediators are limited to what they can do.

Abusive parties – Experts tend to advise against mediation, for parties who are aggressive. This is because in construction mediation an aggressive party can disrupt mediation and worsen the relationship.

Not reach an agreement – In some cases, mediation is not successful and this means that the case will have to be finalized in a courtroom. For example, construction delay claims can often take a long time to be resolved and if it is unsuccessful through mediation then the parties involved would have wasted time and money in the initial process.


Are you in need of private mediation services? Lyle Charles will be able to help you out with your concerns.