In what way are the outcomes friendlier? Surely if the outcomes are better (financially) than court then one party is getting a “raw” deal (compared to their legal entitlement) and is unlikely to accept it and you end up at court anyway? The process *may* be friendlier but I don’t see how the outcomes are.
Here is how a wise lawyer once explained the relative merits of mediation, arbitration and court in commercial disputes to me. I doubt it is that different here.
1. Most disputes can be solved by the two parties having a civil and intelligent discussion with each other and agreeing the outcomes. Legal advice may be useful to consider “what if” scenarios, and ensure that any agreement that is reached is valid.
2. When the parties can’t have a civil discussion about it, then mediation may help. However it will only be useful if one or both parties really wants to avoid court, usually because of the fear of losing at court. If either party feels they are losing the mediation (even if they are not) then they are likely to revert to court if they can afford to do so.
3. When the parties have a mature and sensible approach to the problem, but agree that they need someone independent to decide the outcome then (binding) arbitration is appropriate.
4. When nobody agrees with anybody, then court becomes the only possible option.