Med-Arb may sound a bit puzzling, but it is nothing more than a combination of two methods of dispute resolution, namely mediation and arbitration.

Even though both of the above methods are effective, they also have some weaknesses.

In arbitration, the parties to the conflict do not work out a solution together. It is imposed on them by an independent arbitrator. Therefore, they may have a problem with accepting the solution or feel discomfort when implementing it.

In turn, in mediation, where the parties themselves work out a way out of a difficult situation, someone may feel that the compromise is not the best. Often there is an impasse and no agreement can be reached.

At the beginning, as if in advance, the parties agree (confirm in writing) that the outcome of the trial will be binding on them.

Then they try to find a solution with the help of a mediator. The role of the mediator is the same as in standard mediation. It can help the parties find a solution and reach an agreement. However, he is not allowed to propose ready-made solutions or influence the decisions of the parties.

Mediation may fail. A settlement may not be reached.

Then the process is not finished yet. It only proceeds to the second phase, i.e. to arbitration.

The arbitrator makes a decision based on his judgment. His decision may concern either the whole case or just the unresolved individual threads. In any case, it is binding on the parties and they must comply with it.

In Med-Arb trials, it is permissible for the mediator and arbitrator to be the same person.

Common benefits for out-of-court dispute resolution methods are:

• process speed
• its low complexity
• low costs

In addition, the process is more likely to be successful because it is based on two methods at the same time. When mediation does not bring the expected results, arbitration can be used. What’s more, the mediator and arbitrator can be one and the same person, which significantly streamlines the process.

The main risk occurring only when one person combines the role of mediator and arbitrator will be the risk that this person will not perform equally well in a double role. The mediator, who is then to become an arbitrator, may issue his decision under the influence of information / positions / attitudes he came across while working in his first role.

There is also a certain risk that the parties, under the pressure of the upcoming arbitration, will be somehow forced to reach an agreement with the help of a mediator.

Taking into account both possible risks and benefits achieved thanks to the Med-Arb method, it seems that such a solution is worth trying.

Source:https://poradniknegocjatora.pl/med-arb/

Supported by Norway through Norway Grants 2014-2021, in the frame of the Programme “Social Dialogue – Decent Work”.