Discuss the Processes Available in Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) is any method of resolving disputes other than by litigation. Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a valid contract to abide by them. The two major forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation; but we can also

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).

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is an increasingly popular option that allows people to resolve disputes outside of court in a cooperative manner. ADR can be faster, cheaper and less stressful than going to court. [Most importantly, the use of ADR can provide greater satisfaction with the way disputes are resolved. ADR has been gradually evolving within the Fresno Superior Court for the past several years. In 1999 the Court recognized a need for greater public access to dispute resolution for cases and established an ADR Department. This

Arbitration is a method to submit a resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial forum. For non-labor issues, arbitration can be a less expensive solution. One example is The Home Owners ' Warranty program. A program which aimed to resolve disputes between homeowners and builders. The program was designed between the Home Owners ' Warranty programs of the National Association of Home Builders. This program started in 1973 as a method of formally resolving disputes through arbitration. The program provided a warranty program, using mediation, and arbitration to resolve differences. Before the warranty program was created, the National Association of Home Builders came to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for advice and assistance on dealing with homeowner disputes. Over the years, the program has expanded across the country through the Magnuson-Moss Bill, assisting the Federal Trade Commission on issuing rules on warranty’s and guaranties. The arbitration occurs while looking at the evidence of a dispute objectively for the best solutions (Barrett, 1985, p. 32).

ADR’s are generally confidential, flexible and usually cheaper than going to court. ADR’s are able to offer savings for the justice system as cases resolved through ADR save time, money and resources of the courts. They are also much less formal than a court processes and are confidential, unlike a court, which is usually open to the public. They can also be flexible and can be modified to suits the needs of the parties. However, Other than arbitration, the decision is not binding.

Cooley, J. W., & Lubet, S. (2003). Arbitration Advocacy (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Legislation and court procedures have demonstrated recently how ADR is important in resolving disputes. ‘The commercial Court released a practice statement in 1993, showing that it wished to encourage ADR, and followed this in 1996 with a further direction directing judges to consider whether a case is suitable for ADR at its outset, and to invite the parties to attempt a neutral non-court settlement of their disputes’. The pre-action protocols state that parties should take reasonable steps to apply the directions given in order to make a claim. Failure to apply these pre-action measures may result in not being paid the stipulated costs at the end of the case. ‘Rule 1.4(2)(e) of the CPR states that the court must encourage the parties

There is less hostility involved and it is flexible. The Arbitration process is a simpler set of rules and procedures and it is private. However, this process also has limits in the recourse for an employee to take and the employer could have an uneven and unfair advantage. Moreover, the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange proved that when “ contracts are unconscionable when the process of contract formation essentially involves a “take-it or leave-it” offer of an agreement drafted by a ore powerful party (a “contract of adhesion) and when the contents of the agreement unreasonably favor the more powerful party. (Walsh

One main difference is that in ADR, the disputants chooses an arbitrator before a dispute arises while in a traditional system, the judicial process starts upon the rise of a dispute. Another difference is that parties in the traditional system have less or no control of the judge while in ADR, the disputants select the intermediary (Ray,

This essay will provide a detailed examination of what Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, particularly mediation, the various techniques of ADR, the advantages and disadvantages of ADR; and whether or not courts should have the authority to compel individuals into undertaking mediation or other forms of ADR. This essay argues against courts having the power to compel litigants into mediation but may be afforded powers to encourage parties to go through mediation at first instance. This essay will base its arguments on whether courts should compel civil litigants to follow the ADR route upon the perceived advantages of ADR and its success rate. The contention of this essay is not that mediation is inappropriately used to settle

     Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants;

Arbitration is a dispute resolution method that allows the dispute to be solved outside the court of law. When both parties agree on the arbitration procedure, an arbitrator1 will review the evidence, listen to parties and then issue a final decision (award). This method differs from court litigation in several ways and thus the preference of some MNE’s for arbitration rather than litigation. First, it is a less formal procedure than court litigation, as it does not need a judge or a court. However, it is more formal than the mediation or negotiation processes. Second, and one of the main differences,

Arbitration is legal technique used to resolve any disputes outside of the courts. Arbitration allows for speedy and cheap resolution of any disputes, the parties involved in a dispute agree to appoint a third person (arbitrator) who will hear their testimonies, and look into the evidence they provide. The arbitrator's decision cannot be challenged in a law court as it is considered final and the parties involved have to accept the decision (Brams & Merrill, 1986). There are only very limited circumstances where the decision of an arbitrator can be challenged, and this is mostly if there can be proof from one of the parties showing that the arbitrator was biased in their decision or ruling. The chosen arbitrator will be an experienced person in the area of the dispute.

International commercial arbitration has evolved, primarily, against the background of two unifying international traditions: the private international legal tradition, directed at the harmonization of laws; and the public international law tradition, committed to reducing global barriers to trade. International Commercial arbitration is the most widely used tool for resolution of trade or commercial disputes. The effort should be made to tackle the problems which will benefit commercial transaction activities. Most of the domestic courts were very slow in dealing with Arbitration cases. Therefore, parties now resort to Arbitration in order to avoid lengthy and complex litigation procedure.

ADR is useful in resolving virtually all genres of disputes by providing speedier, enforceable decisions through Arbitration, Mediation, Early Neutral Evaluation and other hybrid mechanisms. The presence of cost-effective and predictable ADR mechanisms capable of resolving complex disputes help to bolster the confidence of litigants within the country and therefore stimulates trade and investment both internationally and locally.