Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Throughout Many Sovereign States
Throughout Many Sovereign States
method to settle civil disputes. Courts administered with rules and procedures in place
and this was how each case was administered. Due to the strength of the legal system in
both England and Wales, it was, therefore, alluded that this was the trusted method to
resolve all cases Blake et al., (2012). However, more uncertainty was felt whether a trial
was the effective way of dealing with disputes as it caused complexity and increased
costs. Moreover, due to a number of cases that have settled out of court over the past
decades, the increasing popularity of the various forms Alternative Dispute resolution
was imminent Blake et al., (2012). Furthermore, In 1998 ADR was officially
acknowledged with the Civil Procedure Rules in Part 1, which explains that courts should
actively do case management. The reference to ‘case management’ further implies that
courts should encourage parties to make use of alternative dispute management.
Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the courts to determine which cases may make use
of an alternative dispute resolution procedure Gladwell (2004). Alternative dispute
resolution can be defined as a dispute resolution processes and methods which are
used as a way for parties who disagree to reach an agreement in the form of a short
legal process Ionescu (2015). In addition (Edmond, 1998 p.1) describes ADR as “the
practices of alternative dispute resolution as increasingly displacing, infiltrating, and
transforming conventional models of legal dispute resolution”. Alternative dispute
resolutions have essentially pointed out to lawyers that they need to take note of the
ADR options that are available for a client. How the ADR procedure works, the
advantages and disadvantages of each option of ADR, the cost implications of ADR as
well as the role of the lawyer with regard to the ADR process Blake et al., (2012).
Due to the rising interest of alternative methods to resolve disputes such as the process
of arbitration is that the process is personalized to the specific dispute. The parties can
select an arbitrator of their choice who has the relevant expertise, rather than the state
nominating a judge from the courts. The process is held privately other than through a
trial and therefore the parties can agree whether they want to make public statements
about the case. Also, settlements reached through ADR can be reached faster as cases in
courts may take many years. Although ADR‘s growing interest has been due to lower
costs as it cheaper than going through the process of the court. The drawbacks of this
form of ADR, as explained by Blake et al., (2012) however the benefit of lower costs may
decrease if a relatively expensive form of ADR is chosen such as arbitration. The
outcome of the decision is made by the arbitrator and therefore the parties do not have
any control of the matter as they would have in a process of mediation. Vessenes (1997)
highlighted the following drawbacks to arbitration as an option of ADR, which are as
follows. Limited discovery as the parties is not allowed an in-depth finding of court
litigation. This is crucial as the claimant might need extensive information to prove his or
her case. Also, since formal rules of evidence will not apply, arbitrators may use evidence
of items which could be rejected or detrimental in the courts. Another drawback is
limited appeals, as arbitrators not giving a legal reason for the decision of a case, it
makes it difficult to appeal a panel decision. Finally, Blake et al., (2012) explain that
arbitration is only likely to be successful when the parties agree to the arbitration
process and have taken great care in the selection of an arbitrator. However, the degree
of failure on such a case would be on an arbitrator not appropriate for the case and has
no knowledge or background and subsequently leaves the parties dissatisfied with the
outcome of the case.
References