A bitter court battle rarely leaves any of the parties completely happy with the result.

Even the 'winners' often end up as 'net losers' because the good relationship they once enjoyed with the other party is adversely affected by a public legal skirmish.

That's particularly true in the case of divorcing parents, or in the case of two companies that before litigation had enjoyed a cordial and mutually beneficial business relationship.

Because of that, warring parties are increasingly turning to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve their disputes, rather than to the court or litigation process.

ADR includes negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

By the time that a dispute arrives on a lawyer's desk, some form of negotiation has normally taken place.

Too often, however, the parties have decided to take a stand `on principle' -- and that normally ends up being expensive. Losers in court are often ordered to pay their opponents' legal costs as well as the fees of their own lawyers.

Another aspect of litigation to consider is that the parties often have little prospect of a continuing relationship after the litigation. Many times, the relationship is destroyed forever by the issue of court proceedings, and the acrimony that they cause.

This can be particularly damaging to a company that formerly relied on its opponent for expertise in a certain area, or to divorcing parents who must maintain a relationship for the sake of their children.

Arbitration has many benefits, not least of which is that the process is private in contrast to litigation, which is public.

Parties who take their matter to arbitration are able to choose the person who will hear their dispute. This is often important in commercial disputes, as the parties are able to ensure that the arbitrator has the knowledge and expertise to properly consider the issues before him or her.

There are two disadvantages to arbitration, however.

As is the case with litigation, a decision by the arbitrator is imposed upon the parties.

And, like litigation, the arbitration process can too often become bogged down in procedural rules, thereby eliminating any potential cost saving.

That leaves mediation, which in my view is far and away the best method to resolve a dispute.

Mediation is the process by which the parties agree to have their dispute referred to a mediator, who engages in a kind of shuttle diplomacybetween the parties.

A skilled mediator is one who listens to the parties, assists them in identifying the underlying issues behind the dispute, and then helps the parties to reach their own, often innovative, solution.

The process can begin at any stage of the dispute, even after proceedings have been issued or a court hearing is in process.

A mediator will normally explain the mediation process, as well as how to prepare for mediation, at a preliminary meeting with both parties.

When the mediation begins, the parties will again meet with the mediator to outline their respective positions to each other, as well as to the mediator.

There may follow some general discussion on the subject before the mediator breaks into a private meeting with each of the parties.

This process will be repeated throughout the mediation process as the mediator brings the parties together periodically to examine what progress has been made and to identify outstanding issues.

Until an agreement is reached, the mediation process is not binding. In fact, the parties can leave the mediation at any time, although an experienced mediator will try his or her best to keep the parties in the mediation.

Once an agreement is reached, it is committed to writing and is binding on the parties from that moment forward.

The mediation process can last a matter of hours or days depending upon the complexity of the dispute or the inflexibility of the parties.

Statistics show that more than 90 per cent of mediated disputes settle at mediation or within a short time thereafter.

My own experience as a mediator is presently a 100 per cent settlement rate -- and this is not unusual as there are many mediators with a similar record.

Mediation is more cost effective than either litigation or arbitration.

The 'cash cost' of mediation is the cost of hiring the mediator for the duration of the mediation process, plus the cost of counsel if counsel is instructed.

The money savings, in contrast with the 'cash cost' of litigation or arbitration, can be considerable.

But just as important is the preservation of the relationship with the other side, as any divorced parent or company at war can attest.

Attorney Kelvin Hastings-Smith is Manager of the Litigation Department at Appleby Spurling & Kempe. He is a CEDR accredited mediator and a qualified arbitrator. Copies of Mr. Hastings-Smith's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling th is Manager of the Litigation Department at Appleby Spurling & Kempe. He is a CEDR accredited mediator and a qualified arbitrator.

Copies of Mr. Hastings-Smith's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling & Kempe This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.

Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.