The four main types of ADR are Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration and Negotiation. There is not a chronological order for using these before court however Mediation and Conciliation are compulsory in family disputes.
Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement. Whether an agreement results or not, and whatever the content of that agreement, if any, the parties themselves determine — rather than accepting something imposed by a third party. The disputes may involve states, organizations, communities, individuals or other representatives with a vested interest in the outcome.
Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial.
Conciliation the similarity it shares to the above is the neutral stance of the third party in helping resolve the dispute. However the main difference in this area focuses on the role of the conciliator, as his role is a much more active and dynamic. He will suggest grounds for compromise and the possible basis for agreements for some sort of settlement.
Arbitration has been criticized for its resemblance to court. In fact many have argued that they share little difference. Those differences however do play a significant role. Rather than a formal judge and independent arbitrator is appointed and a settlement can be concluded with the supervision of a judge. Once arbitration has been agreed upon with the fundamental laws will still apply with The Arbitration Act 1996.
Negotiation seeks to find a compromise between two parties directly. They will attempt to find common ground, which is important as it has been found in previous cases that the claimants agreed at the beginning of trial but were unaware because they did not speak. It is impartial and not legally binding.
The main advantages found in ADR are that it is generally faster and less expensive. It is based on more direct participation by the disputants, rather than being run by lawyers, judges, and the state. In most ADR processes, the disputants outline the process they will use and define the substance of the agreements. This type of involvement is believed to increase people's satisfaction with the outcomes, as well as their compliance with the agreements reached.
Most ADR processes are based on an integrative approach. They are more cooperative and less competitive than adversarial court-based methods like litigation. For this reason, ADR tends to generate less escalation and ill will between parties. In fact, participating in an ADR process will often ultimately improve, rather than worsen, the relationship between the disputing parties. This is a key advantage in situations where the parties must continue to interact after settlement is reached, such as in child custody or labour management cases.
ADR does have many potential advantages, but there are also some possible drawbacks and criticisms of pursuing alternatives to court-based adjudication. Some critics have concerns about the legitimacy of ADR outcomes, charging that ADR provides "second-class justice." It is argued that people who cannot afford to go to court are those most likely to use ADR procedures. As a result, these people are less likely to truly "win" a case because of the cooperative nature of ADR