“I do not trust him, so there is nothing to discuss” is an understandable response to a broken promise. Before mediation, however, it helps to separate your assessment of the person from the conditions for a particular conversation. You may need documents, a clear timetable and time to think before considering any concession. Drawing on Jerzy Plis’s chapter, we explain how to establish a minimum level of predictability for discussing a dispute. This does not require affection, forgetting earlier harm or accepting another promise without checking it.
Key points before you start
- Identify what you cannot currently verify and what information you need.
- Agree specific actions, deadlines and a way to confirm completion.
- Assess a proposal through its terms, rather than an assurance of goodwill alone.
Why does distrust make solutions harder to explore?
Plis describes how distrust restricts the exchange of information and willingness to consider new ideas. Even a potentially useful proposal may be rejected as suspicious. The parties then concentrate on guessing a hidden intention and give less attention to whether a particular problem can be resolved.
The author also identifies the risk of excessive trust. The practical lesson is therefore not to believe everything. Prepare separate lists of facts supported by documents, information needing clarification and your own assumptions. This distinction makes precise questions easier without first having to decide whether the other person is trustworthy overall.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 153–154]
A minimum of trust can concern the meeting’s ground rules
When a dispute about money or earlier conduct remains unresolved, shared rules for discussion can offer a starting point. The book describes building trust around procedure as well. In practice, it helps to agree the meeting’s subject, the order of issues, opportunities for a break and which documents both parties will receive beforehand.
Article 183¹ § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure makes mediation voluntary. Before the conversation, therefore, identify the conditions that would let you consider participating on an informed basis. For a meeting in Kraków or online, you can ask about individual conversations and how concerns can be raised. Organisational arrangements do not determine the contents of a future agreement.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 155–156] [2]
Turn a general promise into something that can be checked
The chapter emphasises specific commitments, deadlines, objective criteria and reliable information. Apply this by asking what exactly should happen, who will do it, by when and how both parties will recognise completion. “We will provide more documents” leaves more uncertainty than a list of named documents and an agreed delivery date.
Where a technical assessment is at issue, an independent opinion may be worth considering. Discuss the questions, choice of specialist and costs first. A document should not be introduced as a surprise to the other party. This is a practical development of the author’s guidance, not a ready settlement template or a guarantee that every opinion will resolve the dispute.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 155]
A small completed action says more than a broad declaration
Plis connects rebuilding trust with keeping commitments. Preparations can begin with a limited organisational action, such as exchanging previously identified statements. Once that has been completed, the parties can assess whether they have enough information to discuss payment, changes to their working relationship or ending an agreement.
Also agree how a delay will be explained. Instead of automatically attributing bad intentions, ask about the missing item and a realistic new date. Repeated failure to carry out arrangements is relevant information too. You do not have to find every explanation convincing or replace concrete details with another round of promises.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 155–156]
Nobody can declare trust on someone else’s behalf
The book distinguishes misunderstandings from earlier deliberate abuse of trust. That matters when setting expectations: one calm conversation does not automatically remove the effects of a long conflict. You can acknowledge an explanation while still needing confirmation of particular circumstances or time to assess a proposal.
Before making initial contact, prepare three short answers: what damaged trust, what can be checked now and what scope of discussion you are willing to consider. This helps describe the issue without pages of accusations. If you cannot yet identify those conditions, that difficulty itself can be discussed when preparing for mediation.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 155–156]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
Utility charges at the end of a commercial tenancy
In this fictional example, the tenant of premises in Kraków disputes the final electricity bill. The landlord believes the tenant is using the dispute to delay payment. Both repeat that the other person has “changed their mind many times”. They do not begin by deciding who should apologise. They identify missing invoices, the billing period and meter readings.
The first agreed step is to provide specific documents by one date and prepare a table of differences. Only then do they plan to discuss the individual amounts. Organising information in this example provides a basis for the next decision; it proves neither person’s honesty and does not determine whether a settlement will follow. Any proposed agreement needs a separate assessment of its contents.
Questions about this topic
Can mediation be useful if I do not trust the other party at all?
You can first explore whether acceptable discussion rules and a way to verify important information exist. A meeting does not make distrust disappear. What matters is whether you can assess proposals on an informed basis without relying on promises alone.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 153–156]
What should I prepare instead of another list of accusations?
A short description of a specific event, the document or information needed to clarify it, and a suggestion for the next verifiable step. Separate what you know from what you infer. Doing so does not require you to abandon your position.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 155–156]
Sources and further reading
- Jerzy Plis, „Bariery w negocjacjach i mediacji. Sposoby przeciwdziałania”, rozdz. VII, w: Aneta M. Arkuszewska, Jerzy Plis (red. nauk.), Zarys metodyki pracy mediatora w sprawach cywilnych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014, s. 137–159, ISBN 978-83-264-3282-8.
Pages cited from this edition: 153–156.
- Ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, tekst jednolity Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 468, ze zmianami; w szczególności art. 183¹–183¹⁵, art. 259¹, art. 436 i art. 445².
An original discussion based on Jerzy Plis’s chapter in the 2014 edition, pp. 153–156. References identify printed pages; the examples and reader guidance are original practical developments. The cited Polish legal provisions were checked separately as at 23 October 2026.
Educational material based on sources checked on 23 October 2026. It does not replace an individual legal assessment of a particular case. The scenarios are fictional and do not describe clients’ experiences or outcomes achieved by the Foundation. Legislation, judgments and research publications are cited alongside the relevant topics; DOIs are provided only for publications that have such an identifier.