Home / George Ide / Mediation: it pays to talk

Mediation: it pays to talk

19 January 2026

Paul Fretwell is a solicitor and Head of the Personal Injury department at George Ide LLP, with over 30 years’ experience acting for clients who have sustained serious and life-changing injuries. In this article, Paul explains the role of mediation and joint settlement meetings in personal injury claims, and why resolving disputes outside of court can often provide a more constructive, less stressful route to achieving fair compensation.

Since 1990 I have had the privilege of representing seriously injured accident victims. Many of my clients’ claims have been settled in negotiations with the negligent party’s insurer or legal team; fewer than 1% have been decided in court by a judge.

During my career I have found trials to be extremely stressful and unpredictable for my clients; once the hearing starts the process seems to take on a life of its own – although there is an alternative to trial: alternative dispute resolution, the most common form of which is a joint settlement meeting.

In a typical joint settlement meeting I will sit in a room with my client and a family member while the parties’ respective barristers negotiate in a separate room, discussing the key points of the case and making and receiving settlement offers. The barristers return periodically to the respective parties to take instruction and consider strategy. Together, we as lawyers help, support and advise our client to proceed with the negotiations in a way that they are most comfortable with; at no point does my client meet the opposing party. The process is as calm and relaxed as possible under the circumstances, hopefully allowing the lawyers to agree on a fair and reasonable level of compensation that adequately recognises my client’s pain, suffering, and lifetime needs.

In my experience, however, sometimes mediation is preferable to a joint settlement meeting. Mediators in high value claims are independent, highly respected, usually very senior or recently retired lawyers with substantial trial experience, often from a judge’s perspective.

In cases when, for whatever reason, there is a huge gulf between my client’s expectations and the other side’s case valuation, a mediator can be very helpful in ensuring a level playing field – I have had a number of cases over the years in which the insurer has sought to use hardball tactics to limit or stop the flow of interim payments or rehabilitation support to my client in an attempt to bring a seriously injured claimant to the negotiation table from a position of perceived desperation.

There are two types of mediation: facilitative (helping the parties to understand each other) and evaluative (advising the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their circumstances and/or proposing a settlement figure). In practise, I have found mediators tend to combine both approaches. There often comes a point at which an insurer reaches a limit to their offer. At this point, positions can become somewhat entrenched – a mediator is often able to break this type of impasse. Insurers tend to set a reserve figure in a case that can present an obstacle to progress. I have known cases that have settled only because of the mediator’s personal intervention.

Paul Fretwell