On 23 April 2026, NAI40 organised a meeting on business mediation at Houthoff in Rotterdam. The immediate occasion was the launch of the updated NAI Mediation Rules. The afternoon concluded with drinks at the NAI.
NAI Mediation Rules
NAI Director Tomas Vaal opened the proceedings with an explanation of how the new rules came about. He explained how the revised rules align with the NAI’s ambition to be a one-stop-shop for dispute resolution. He also explained that the rules are the result of feedback from practice and the Lotamblau judgment of the Supreme Court. That judgment was one of the reasons for introducing two new model clauses: one of a mandatory nature (cooperating in the appointment and attending at least one session) and one inviting parties to consider mediation.
He also highlighted the establishment of a pool of experienced business mediators, intended to increase confidence in and the visibility of NAI Mediation.
Mediation: why (not)?
A poll of those present at the start of the session made it clear that most of the lawyers in the room had (virtually) no experience with commercial mediation and rarely, if ever, recommended it to clients. The associations the participants had with mediation confirmed the image of persistent prejudices such as ‘soft’, ‘hippies’ and ‘a waste of time’.
This set the tone for a lively panel discussion featuring Manon Schonewille (Tool-kit Company), Pieter van Slobbe (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek) and Dirk Knottenbelt (Houthoff), moderated by Anne Hendrikx (Clifford Chance).
The discussion focused on the question of when mediation is appropriate in a business context and what barriers people encounter. The panellists each shed light on the subject from their own experience and expertise.
“What’s the downside?” was the pragmatic key question posed by the panel.
“The costs and time involved in mediation are often manageable, and even when no settlement is reached, the process usually yields valuable insights. This view is confirmed by recent research, which shows that business mediation has a success rate of around 80%. Most users find this (very) valuable.”
Different styles of mediation: from passive to active
A key theme during the session was the shift in what business parties expect from a mediator. Research shows that business users increasingly require a mediator who takes the lead and contributes substantively, rather than someone who merely facilitates the process. The new NAI regulations respond to this by explicitly providing scope for tools such as a mediator’s proposal – a non-binding proposal from the mediator to the parties when they cannot reach an agreement between themselves.
At the same time, the panel drew a clear line: the mediator must not assume the role of a binding advisor or arbitrator. The NAI rules therefore explicitly exclude such a role change, but do allow for the swift appointment of a separate arbitrator or binding advisor via the NAI when the parties require a legal opinion on a (partial) dispute.
International trends
The developments in the Netherlands were then placed in an international context. In England, judges have recently been able to issue an ADR order; in certain jurisdictions, mediation is a prerequisite for admissibility; and the American Arbitration Association provides for a parallel mediation process as standard. The comparison made it clear that the Netherlands still lags behind internationally in this area when it comes to the systematic use of mediation in commercial dispute resolution.
A new closing survey was encouraging in this regard: those present indicated they were twice as likely to recommend mediation as they had been before the session. Whereas preconceptions had initially dominated, virtually all those present subsequently regarded mediation as a serious option for commercial disputes.
Read more about the advantages of business mediation at the NAI or contact us at secretariaat@nai.nl.
