Mediation, arbitration and conciliation: the differences.

One question tells them apart: who decides?

The clearest way to separate these three is to ask who controls the outcome. In mediation, the parties keep control and settle only if they agree. In arbitration, they hand the decision to an arbitrator whose ruling binds them, much like a private judge. Conciliation sits closer to mediation but with a more active neutral who proposes solutions and gives a view. Everything else follows from that difference.

This is general information, not advice on your matter. The right process depends on the dispute, on what any contract requires, and on what the relevant tribunal offers. Some forums build one of these in as a required step, so the choice is not always yours to make.

What is mediation?

Mediation is assisted negotiation, covered in our guide on what mediation is. A neutral mediator helps the parties reach their own agreement but does not decide anything or impose a result. The outcome is only binding if the parties sign terms of settlement, which then work as a contract. Mediation is private, flexible, and cheaper than the alternatives.

Because the parties keep control, mediation can produce outcomes a court or arbitrator could not, such as an apology, a continuing business relationship, or a tailored payment plan. Its weakness is the same as its strength: if one side refuses to move, there is no result. That is the trade-off for keeping the decision in the parties' hands.

What is arbitration?

Arbitration is a private hearing before an arbitrator, who listens to both sides and then makes a decision called an award. The award is binding and enforceable, much like a court judgment, and the right of appeal is very limited. Arbitration is common in commercial and construction contracts, which often require disputes to be arbitrated rather than litigated, and in international deals where neither side wants the other's home courts.

Arbitration trades the public courtroom for a private one, but the parties still give up control of the outcome. It can be faster and more private than court and lets the parties choose an expert decision-maker, but it can be just as expensive, and the narrow appeal rights mean a wrong award is hard to fix. Where a contract contains an arbitration clause, the parties are usually held to it and cannot simply go to court instead.

What is conciliation?

Conciliation looks like mediation but the neutral takes a more active role. A conciliator does not just carry messages; they assess the dispute, point out the strengths and weaknesses, and actively suggest terms of settlement. In some forums the conciliator has expertise in the subject and gives the parties a candid view of the likely outcome to push them towards a deal. The parties still decide whether to accept.

Conciliation is common in tribunals and statutory schemes, including many employment and workplace matters and anti-discrimination complaints, where a conciliation conference is a required first step. The active, evaluative style suits disputes where the parties want guidance from someone who knows the area, rather than the purely facilitative approach of a mediator who keeps their own view to themselves.

Is the outcome binding?

This is where the three part company. An arbitrator's award is binding and enforceable whether or not the parties like it, subject to very limited appeal. A mediation or conciliation binds the parties only if they reach and sign an agreement; without that, nothing is imposed and the dispute continues. So arbitration guarantees an outcome, while mediation and conciliation guarantee only a process.

That difference drives the choice. If you need a decision and the other side will not agree to anything, arbitration or court delivers one. If you want to keep control and craft your own outcome, mediation or conciliation is the better fit. Many disputes move through the softer processes first and only reach a binding decision if those fail.

Which one should you use?

Often the choice is made for you. A contract may require arbitration. A tribunal may require conciliation before it will list a hearing. A court may refer a civil case to mediation whether or not the parties consent. Where you do have a choice, mediation is usually the sensible first attempt, because it is cheap, private and preserves control, and most disputes settle there.

If mediation fails and the dispute has to be decided by someone, the question becomes arbitration or court. Arbitration suits parties who want privacy, speed and an expert decision-maker and who accept the narrow appeal rights. Court suits parties who want the full protections of the public system and a proper right of appeal. The best path depends on the stakes, the contract, and how much control each side is willing to give up.

Primary sources: court-referred mediation is in Part 4 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Arbitration is governed by the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW), and conciliation features in many statutory schemes and tribunals. NSW dispute-resolution decisions are searchable on JADE.

Common questions

What is the difference between mediation and arbitration?

In mediation the parties keep control and settle only if they agree; the mediator cannot impose anything. In arbitration the parties hand the decision to an arbitrator, whose award is binding and enforceable like a court judgment, with very limited appeal. Mediation guarantees a process; arbitration guarantees an outcome.

What is conciliation?

Conciliation is like mediation but with a more active neutral. A conciliator assesses the dispute, points out strengths and weaknesses, and actively suggests terms of settlement, often with expertise in the subject. The parties still decide whether to accept. It is common in tribunals, employment matters and discrimination complaints as a required first step.

Is arbitration binding?

Yes. An arbitrator makes a decision called an award, which is binding and enforceable much like a court judgment, and the right of appeal is very limited. Where a contract contains an arbitration clause, the parties are usually held to it and cannot simply go to court instead.

Is a mediated outcome binding?

Only if the parties reach and sign an agreement. A signed set of terms of settlement works as a binding contract. Without agreement, nothing is imposed in mediation or conciliation, and the dispute continues. That is the trade-off for keeping the decision in the parties' hands.

Which is best for my dispute?

Often the choice is made for you by a contract, a tribunal's rules, or a court referral. Where you can choose, mediation is usually the sensible first attempt because it is cheap, private and keeps control with the parties. If a binding decision is needed and the other side will not agree, arbitration or court delivers one.

To speak to a litigation lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.

This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, Special Counsel at Good Legal Lawyers, as at 30 August 2026. It is general information and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. The law changes and procedure varies from case to case. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.

More commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.

← Back to all guides