A decision recognising successful court mediation is immediately enforceable and not appealable like a judgment, so the court mediation session is when parties truly bargain with final figures. One distinction matters in advice: in-proceedings mediation after acceptance is entirely different from pre-acceptance mediation and dialogue at court; confusing the two gives parties wrong expectations about the document they are about to sign.
The first question is not procedure but the legal nature of mediation while the court is handling the case: characterise it correctly and every later step stands on firm ground.
1. Current legal basis
Articles 202 to 213 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015: the court conducts mediation during trial preparation, a successful mediation is minuted and a recognition decision issues with judgment-like force; this differs from mediation and dialogue under the 2020 Law on Mediation and Dialogue at Court, which is a pre-acceptance procedure.
2. How the rules apply to the situation
What decides this situation is evidence of what actually happened with mediation while the court is handling the case, not how the parties describe it afterwards. Articles 202 to 213 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015: the court conducts mediation during trial preparation, a successful mediation is minuted and a recognition decision issues with judgment-like force: that is the yardstick against which the deciding body cross-checks dates on original documents, independent third-party data and the parties’ conduct right after the event before concluding which side is more credible.
Take a case close to practice: A decision recognising successful court mediation is immediately enforceable and not appealable like a judgment, so the court mediation session is when parties truly bargain with final figures. One distinction matters in advice: in-proceedings mediation after acceptance is entirely different from pre-acceptance mediation and dialogue at court; confusing the two gives parties wrong expectations about the document they are about to sign. This case shows why mediation while the court is handling the case should never be handled by oral agreement: Articles 202 to 213 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015: the court conducts mediation during trial preparation, a successful mediation is minuted and a recognition decision issues with judgment-like force, and only the original documents preserve the sequence of events once the parties start disagreeing about the same course of events.
3. Sequence and action checklist
Step 1: check limitation and preconditions (contractual negotiation or mediation steps, specifically for mediation while the court is handling the case, where agreed) before drafting the filing — this step applies directly to mediation while the court is handling the case.
Step 2: build the evidence set fact by fact, specifically for mediation while the court is handling the case, marking what is missing and where it can be obtained — this step applies directly to mediation while the court is handling the case.
Step 3: draft the procedural document in the correct form and jurisdiction and file it with the fee advance on the accepting body’s notice — this step applies directly to mediation while the court is handling the case.
Step 4: track procedural milestones on a case-specific calendar, specifically for mediation while the court is handling the case, never on individual memory — this step applies directly to mediation while the court is handling the case.
Step 5: prepare a fallback plan for each possible outcome, specifically for mediation while the court is handling the case, including a timely appeal and enforcement as soon as the document takes effect — this step applies directly to mediation while the court is handling the case.
4. Risks and post-check notes
Unsuccessful mediation does not remove the right to a trial, and admissions made in the session should be weighed before speaking, because the mediation minutes remain in the case file the trial panel will read.
The last self-check before acting on mediation while the court is handling the case is file consistency: the same event described differently in two documents is the source of most later disputes and adverse decisions.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council