Mediation is the only type of ADR that involves an independent, neutral third party acting as a go-between, trying to get the parties to talk through what each side wants and negotiate a mutually beneficial compromise. And the mediator does not offer any opinion. It is commonly used in family dispute. By using mediation services, parties can set their own timetable and control the cost by halting proceedings. There is no appeal but can abandon mediation at any time.
The last type of ADR is the arbitration. It is the most formal type of ADR. And there are two types of arbitration, they are paper-based and face-to-face hearing. For the paper-based method, both parties in dispute complete written submissions to the arbitrator concerning their issues. The arbitrator considers both sides’ arguments and provides a written decision to the parties. For the face-to-face hearing method, it is similar to, though less formal than a court appearance. Both parties give their submissions and the arbitrator decides the outcome, called the ‘award’. The award is binding on both parties and can be enforced or even challenged in the courts. This method of arbitration is commonly used in holiday dispute and commercial dispute. By using arbitration, parties can set their own timetable and control cost by halting proceedings. Also, it is very private during arbitration. It is not very formal but some rules are quit strict. No appeal is allowed and the decision imposed and binding.
For the civil courts proceeding, there are three different tracks; small-claim track, fast track and multi-track. In the small-claim track, it has a maximum financial limit of £5,000. Such cases are heard on a more informal basis by a district judge and usually take place in a committee room, rather than in a courtroom. The time set aside for such hearings is usually an hour or less, and the judge gives a decision at the end of the session. At the end of the case, the winner is not awarded his/her own costs against the unsuccessful party.
In the fast track, it is used for claims between £5,000 and £15,000. Cases are strictly timetabled by the judge and should be heard within 30 weeks of the claim formally being made against the defendant.
For the multi-track, it deals with claims exceeding £15,000, and can be heard by either the County Court or the High Court, depending on the value and the degree of legal complexity of the case. The judge exercises case-management, involving pre-trial hearings between the parties and the laying down of a timetable to bring the case to court.
To compare the two methods of dispute solving, we can see that the expense for attending court is always higher than ADR. Mostly related to the cost of employing a legal expertise such as barrister, since High Court litigation is not for the inexperienced. Although the most expensive method of ADR Is seemed to be arbitration, where lawyers are sometimes used, it is still cheaper than a court case. Also, a court case is usually found delay and injustice. According to the ‘The Civil Justice Review’, set up in 1985, observed that the system was overstretched, and that the time between the incident giving rise to the claim and the trial could be up to 3 years for County Court and 5 years for the High Court. While using ADR, the parties can set up their own time table and have the rights to control the process. In negotiation, mediation and conciliation sessions, the parties can choose to stop at any time. An agreement will only be reached if both sides accept it. The fact that the parties come to an agreement has another advantage, it means they will be able to go on keeping a good relationship between each other. So 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