Small claims procedures exist in many places for exactly this reason. Ideally the parties submit their own version of events and if the facts are not in disput

Small claims procedures exist in many places for exactly this reason. Ideally the parties submit their own version of events and if the facts are not in dispute then a judge or similar official can rule on the case without anyone ever needing to appear in person. The fees can be minimal but enough to deter frivolous actions. There can be a policy where the loser pays those fees by default so if one party will clearly win then there is an incentive for the other to settle immediately without going through the whole process. If the facts are in dispute then you can move to providing evidence and if necessary to each side making a full case at some kind of trial. By the time you're appearing in person that will probably incur a higher cost even if the system is designed to minimise overheads. That means it's only worth going that far if there is enough on the line to justify the effort. But isn't that reasonable for something that will take a significant amount of both parties' time and the court's resources to decide and if the facts are in dispute and neither party has clear evidence that immediately resolves the matter? Again you can keep the fees low but not completely negligible and have a presumption that the loser will pay to incentivise settling early in most cases.