Advantages And Disadvantages Of Arbitral Proceedings

Arbitration is the submission of a disputed matter to an impartial person (the arbitrator) for decision. Arbitration is typically an out-of-court method for resolving a dispute. The arbitrator controls the process, will listen to both sides and make a decision. Like a trial, only one side will prevail. Unlike a trial, appeal rights are limited.

The advantage of choosing the tribunal system is that it is not strictly bound by the restrictions of rules of evidence and precedent. Although, tribunals are to some degree bound by the decisions of other tribunals they have a greater degree of flexibility in their decision-making powers. This in itself means that tribunals can give the appellant a greater chance of success especially since tribunals can admit evidence that a court might perhaps refuse to listen to, for example hearsay evidence.

This list, preparation of which is laid out in detail in CH 6:53 S 10 (the Jury Act) is complied from information collected from

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are all forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that are alternatives that organizations use to avoid litigation in court.  According to Valenti Law, negotiation and mediation are forms of non-binding ADR, while arbitration is a binding ADR (2011).  Since arbitration is a binding ADR, the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding and cannot be challenged by either party in the arbitration.  “There are limited grounds for challenging the decision” (Valenti Law, 2011).

During the hearing, first of all, both parties must take an oath that all of the words are truth. Then, the tribunal starts asking some questions. It allows that both parties to provide relevant evidence and witnesses. Meanwhile, the witnesses must answer all the relevant questions if it is necessary.

This dispute highlighted the importance of being organized and having all evidence and paperwork submitted before a trial or hearing. In this case, the defendants had made a counter-claim for $4,500 for the cost of having to go to court when the plaintiff was unprepared. The judge denied the defence’s request but did make a judgment of $500 for the defence based on rule 19.05 of the Small Claims Court. In addition, the plaintiff’s had wanted to add more evidence to their own defence. The defendant made a request to have the trial take place with only the evidence that had been submitted. The judge denied the request, which demonstrates how much final say a judge has in the outcome of a trial.

information needs to be kept private to reduce the likelihood that those who do not need to know

You have been charged with an either way offence this means that you will get the choice as to whether you trial your case at the Magistrates or Crown Court. In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay people presenting their advantages and disadvantages. I will also evaluate the jury system. As I have explained either way offences can either be very serious or very minor, which is why they are tried at the Crown Court or Magistrates’.

William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

Procedural arbitrability issues concern whether the parties have complied with the terms of an arbitration provision, and are presumptively handled by arbitrators. These issues include whether prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, as well as allegations of waiver, delay, or a like defense to

From this brief history of ADR provisions, it is easy to see the widespread acceptance of ADR in more recent times compared to the hostility that courts expressed toward it early on. The trend of acceptance spread, and in May of 1986, forty-five states had enacted statutes similar to the second Uniform Arbitration Act, enforcing agreements to arbitrate future disputes.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that

Firstly, the choice of law applicable to the substance of the dispute which the parties have made can be either express or implied and if such choice took place the arbitrators have to apply it. Without any indications concerning choice of applicable law, an arbitral tribunal has to determine such law through the searching of proper