The problems of "Bloodgate" at Harlequins Rugby Club illustrate the complelling need to settle cases.
The problem facing all parties is that once a mediated settlement has not been reached your dirty laundering can be aired in public.
According to correspondence seen by Telegraph Sport, the player, Tom Williams made the request in a “final offer” sent to the club at 10.55am on Aug 7, the day of his deadline for appealing against the ban representing the sum of £650,000.
Harlequins rejected the proposal but did agree to pay Williams £100,000 in compensation for “the damage we have caused him”.
Even as late as six hours before his time to appeal expired, Williams was still prepared to stick with his lies at the original disciplinary hearing, for a price.
Of Harlequins, Evans and Jillings could face action after they made repeated attempts to prevent wing Tom Williams revealing the scale of the cover-up at the Stoop orchestrated by the club's former director of rugby, Dean Richards.
It is intriguing that in a matter of such significance Harlequins would not have considered using a mediator. Mediation is still not a key feature of much litigation resolution.
A mediator could have helped the parties:
- Reach a confidential agreemnent
- Avoided the need for the parties to have their dirty laundering aired in public. It seems a number of people at Harlequins has had their reputations damaged.
- Kept the legal fees to the minumum.
- Enabled the parties to come together to reach constructive soiutions.