• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Disputes - Is ADR always more appropriate or does attending court sometimes providing a better solution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Compare and contrast ADR with the court. Is ADR always more appropriate or does attending court sometimes providing a better solution? 1. There are 4 main types of ADR; they are Negotiation, Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. For the negotiationNEGOTIAION, this is the most informal way of resolving disputes and it is commonplace in everyday life, especially in consumer dispute. The parties agree a solution 'over the fence', without the need for the intervention of lawyers. By using negotiation, the matter can be solved quickly and privately. The parties can set their own timetable and less cost if process close by and shorter. Although there is no appeal allowed for the negotiation, parties can abandon at any time or resort to courts. 2. Conciliation CONCILIATION is similar to mediation, but there is no neutral third party. Instead, there is a conciliator. The conciliator has the power to suggest a resolution and avoid litigation. It is often used is cases of unfair dismissal like employment dispute. Same as negotiation, the parties can set their own timetable and less cost if the process close by and shorter. Also it is very private and informal/ Different from other types of ADR, conciliation dose allow appealing and it can turn to Divorce County Court or appeal to High Court Family Division. ...read more.

Middle

However, apart from own legal fee, the failing party would usually be required to bear the winning party's legal fee. And not all winning party's fee would be reimbursed by the failing party in accordance with order. The actual winner was their lawyers. 9. Professor Hazel Genn did a research on peoples' reactions to breaches of the civil law. In his research, he found that 95% of people take actions to resolve a justiciable civil dispute. 5% do not take action, and among the 5%, there are high percentage on low incomes and poor educational qualifications. In the 95% of people who take action to resolve a justiciable civil dispute, 34% of them settle the matter by agreement, 14% settle through a court or tribunal, and the rest of the percentage of people have no resolution reached and the case abandoned. From the research, it tells us that, the role of courts in resolving civil disputes is relatively small. 10. After ADR schemes have been endorsed by Lord Woolf's civil justice reforms, parties are encouraged to take ADR to resolve their dispute. Apparently, a lot of people will consider the following to compare and contrast the ADR and the Court before taking legal action. ...read more.

Conclusion

So ADR is always more appropriate than attending to a court. 12. However, on the following situations, sometimes parties will choose to attend the Court to seek an order for solution (1) The action relates to "Scandalous or vexatious, initiated or prosecuted maliciously, ulterior motive or oppressive manner". (2) The attitude of the party (a) Views himself / herself as a hero fighting against hostile forces. The other party is seen as evil, unjustified and illegitimate. (b) Views himself / herself as doing something righteous to uphold principles of a higher order. The other party is viewed as immoral. (c) View himself / herself as a detective trying to reveal the self-serving motives of the other party. 13. As the aim of ADR is to facilitate settlement, the endorsement of Lord Woolf on ADR, can lead us go towards a better legal environment. So I am of the view that ADR is always more appropriate than attending to a court. (1) Professional fee: ADR usually borne by both parties on equal share but costs of litigation is usually borne by failing party. It means that apart from own legal costs, failing party has to bear winning party's legal fee. And although winning party's fee ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the name given to the process where parties in ...

    5 star(s)

    Court proceedings create a winner and a loser. Using ADR to settle a dispute means businesses can remain on good terms and continue to trade with each other once their dispute is resolved. Costs to the Parties as all forms of ADR are far cheaper than taking a case to court.

  2. Woolf Reforms

    A further change to the civil courts system is that the civil courts are in the process of introducing a new computer system; it is intended that the courts will move from a paper-based system to one where many communications take place electronically, for example statements and evidence being exchanged via email.

  1. Alternative Dispute Resolution Essay

    business wants to keep to itself, for example if a bank wanted to sue another company for hacking into their private database the bank wouldn't want to publicise this because customers would become unnerved and wouldn't want to use an insecure bank, however if the bank used ADR then no-one

  2. Conditional Fee Arrangements and Legal Aid

    The system of state-funded help in this country goes back almost half a century. The legal aid scheme was designed to allow poorer people access to legal advice and representation in court. The system developed into six schemes, covering most types of case, and administered by the Legal Aid Board.

  1. Explain and comment on the main reforms made to the civil justice system after ...

    However, despite the fact that such reforms have shown progress in favour of the courts, a survey displayed that 96% of lawyers were dissatisfied with the service provided by county courts.

  2. There are several differences between a negotiated out of court settlement and a civil ...

    Several meetings with the mediator will occur, some with both parties present, and others separately. Costs are kept low because lawyers are not necessary but are permitted, also legal aid may be available during family disputes. The outcome is decided by the people disagreeing, it is not the mediator's role to decide.

  1. Penal Studies for Professional Practice

    trust the woman will fulfill such duties (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee 2004, p88). Consequently women experience a high level of anxiety over who will be able to care and provide for their children and may be forced to rely upon the goodwill of grandmothers, female relatives and friends (Gelsthorpe, 2004).

  2. Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to methods of resolving disputes without going to court.

    This may be common in holiday packages under the ?Scott v Avery? clause. The decision made can then be enforced by courts. There are several advantages in arbitration such as the flexibility and the informality of the procedure where parties can choose the location, arbitrator(s)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work