How effective would ADR be to the parties potentially involved in your three chosen examples?
How effective would ADR be to the parties potentially involved in your three chosen examples?
Is the fear that ADR brings about ‘second class justice’ realised in your three chosen examples?
There are a number of official routes that disputing parties may take to resolve their differences, which do not involve the formality of a courtroom. These methods include the use of tribunals, mediation, arbitration, negotiation or Ombudsmen and can be more inquisitorial, less adversarial than the traditional court centred approach. These routes are called Alternative Dispute Resolution, and the three methods that will be focused upon in this essay are mediation, arbitration and the use of an Ombudsman.
Mediation is a practical way of resolving disputes in situations where the hostile parties have to maintain some kind of ongoing relationship. A neutral third party helps them reach their own decision, so this could involve neighbours contesting which household should bear financial responsibility for a boundary fence which requires replacement. In such a situation, the parties that enter mediation begin as equals and are guided to concentrate on the dispute in an atmosphere less formal and intense than the courts. This is an efficient, fast and inexpensive manner of settling the dispute, which is beneficial to both parties. However, as mediation often involves a compromise, which would involve sharing the cost of the new fence in this example, there remains potential for further conflict as neither party will have achieved the result they initially desired. From this angle it could be argued that mediation delivers ‘second class justice’, but as the agreement is not forced upon the participants and they reach it themselves, it could be assumed that the parties do not view it as such.
