Alternate Dispute Resolutions
- Created by: Jessica Speight
- Created on: 10-05-14 16:12
View mindmap
- Alternative Dispute resolution
- 2) Mediation
- Disadvantages
- 2) Party may refuse to take part
- 1) Doesnt always result in a settlement
- 3) Legal precedent cant be set
- Advantages
- 2) Quick and simple
- 1) Inexpensive compared with court
- 3) Allows for flexible solutions & settlements
- An independent 3rd party is involved (mediator). The parties must solve their dispute. The mediator is simply a go between.
- It is voluntary, the parties must decide whether or not to mediate
- It is private and confidential - what you speak about in the mediation cannot be used in court unless both parties agree.
- Parties make the final decision and the mediator is impartial. Takes place in a neutral place - normally face to face.
- Disadvantages
- 3) Conciliation
- Advantages
- 2) Private and confidential
- 1) not face to face
- 3) Quick and agreement must be mutual
- Disadvantages
- 2) Conciliator may be biased
- 1) No binding decision, the parties may not stick to their word.
- Similar process to mediation except the conciliator is able to intervene bymaking suggestions and commenting on the decisions. The conciliator is neutral
- Operates in industrial settlements E.g employment tribunal cases
- ACAS will be sent a copy of the employees claim and the employers responce. the ACAS representative is an expert in employment law and can act as a conciliator
- The conciliator will organise a convenient place and time for both parties
- May attend with legal advisors and if the parties agree, it can become legally binding. If the matter is not resolved then it can go to court.
- Advantages
- 1) Negotiation
- This is the first method used to try and resolve a dispute.
- Parties will communicate with each other to try and agree on matters without court. (face to face or over the phone.)
- Normally small disagreement, such as a neighbour disagreement.
- A meeting will take place to state each of the parties positions
- Focuses on the issues and for a successful negotiation it requires one or both of the parties to compromise their positions
- There is no cost involved - Cheaper and quicker to involve lawyers
- Disadvantages
- 2) No witnesses or neutral 3rd party
- 1) Non binding resolution
- 3) May increase the conflict.
- Advantages
- 2) Confidential therefore avoids publicity
- 1) Speedy, informal and less stressful.
- 3) May preserve or enhance relationships between the parties.
- This is the first method used to try and resolve a dispute.
- 4) Arbitration
- Arbitration act 1996
- Parties agree to let third party make a binding decision. Agreement to use arbitration must be voluntary. It can also be made before any dispute starts SCOTT V AVERY
- Court will refuse to deal with the dispute unless it is a consumer dispute.
- 1) Agreed by parties
- May be a paper hearing or attend hearings. The date, time and place is agreed by the parties. Witnesses may be called to give evidence.
- 2) Arbitrator decides the case
- This is called an award
- 3) Decision is final
- But can be challenged in court if there is a point of law
- 1) Agreed by parties
- Parties agree on the arbitrator and how many they should have.
- Most agreements will name an arbitrator or give a way of choosing one through ABTA
- Institute of arbitrators provides arbitrators for big disputes
- If the dispute involves a point of law then a lawyer can be involved
- Arbitrators charge a fee which is paid by the parties.
- Advantages
- 3) Anything can be evidence if relevant
- 2) Less costly than court
- 1) Speedy resolution
- Disadvantages
- 2) May become expensive
- 1) No right to appeal
- 3) Decision may not favour a party.
- Arbitration act 1996
- 2) Mediation
Comments
No comments have yet been made