Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution And Criminal Laws

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), also known as external dispute resolution, includes dispute resolution mechanism, processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. This is a collective term for the ways that parties can settle disputes, with (or without) the aid of a third party. The increasing popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes lesser costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.

To by-pass this hectic and expensive route people found many alternative routes. Aggregating all methods under one title is called ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (ADR). ADR procedures are Adversarial (i.e. with legal proceedings) and Non-adversarial (i.e. without legal proceedings ). They are made to reconcile the disputants' interests, instead of focusing only on the disputants' rights. Also they tend to be relatively

Arbitration involves a presentation of evidence by both sides to a dispute, much like in a typical lawsuit. The difference is that an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators hears the evidence rather than the judge.

“ To avoid or reduce these problems, businesses are increasingly turning to methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and other aids to resolving disputes” (Chessman, 201 , p. 45-46). This method of dispute resolution is not costly and does not disrupt business as usual or life as usual. Arbitration is the commonly used form of ADR.

Arbitration is an alternative legal dispute resolution process where instead of bringing your legal dispute to a court presided over by an elected judicial official, the dispute is less formally presented to an individual or a panel of arbitrators who are either appointed by the courts or employed by private arbitration firms. Mandatory arbitration clauses typically appear in government contracts, union contracts, consumer contracts and employment contracts. The arbitrators are more likely employees of private arbitration firms nominated or designated by one or more parties.

The remaining common method of alternative dispute resolution, before litigation through the court system is arbitration. Although, in the general sense it is primarily used for commercial and workplace disputes where a fast and enforceable decision is required , as opposed to family cases. Nonetheless, the process is essentially similar to the advisory system of expert appraisal, where an independent expert is

The process of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a relatively new phenomena which has infiltrated contemporary next generation human resource management. As the use of ADR methods grew, proponents viewed them as promising mechanism’s for an abundance of scenarios. Conflict has and always will be an inherent part of the workplace (Colvin 2003). It is for this reason alternative conflict resolution has amassed development, especially considering the cost of rigid normative procedures, with Gibbons (2007, p 7) estimating that employment conflict in the UK costing an estimated £410 million annually. Conflict is generated when one party perceives that another party has negatively influenced something the first party cares about (Huczynski and Buchanan 2007, p764). It is in this context that conflict resolution processes ought to address both the actions and perceptions of both parties in the dispute in order to garner more successful results (Willmott 1993). Therefore, in order to achieve this practically a significant shift was required from regular grievance strategies toward a more flexible and pragmatic system which promotes a positive outcome for both parties (Gibbons 2007, p 7). All forms of ADR will involve a third party with the role of the third party contingent on the type of ADR applied .The type of ADR used shall be dictated by the type of dispute, what stage it is at and ultimately the type of resolution being sought. It is against this backdrop that this

Within the Australian justice system, Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR) have historically been perceived as a means whereby parties can seek to resolve a variety of disputes, but in a non-judicial manner. As we move further into the 21st century, the rising costs associated with lengthy and often ineffective litigation, accompanied with a need to reduce burdens placed upon our legal system have allowed for a notable shift away from the courts as the primary means of dispute resolution, with a growing number of parties preferring ADR as the most appropriate means to bring about a more cooperative approach to legal matters. In the past, it has been largely up to the parties to identify the issues that are in dispute, which would then later be adjudicated in the appropriate court. Many scholars have strongly advocated in favour of adopting pre action requirements, whereby parties are encouraged to negotiate disputes prior to the commencement of litigation. Lord Wolff in his 1996 report into the UK justice system importantly notes that “the present system… is too expensive in that the costs often exceed the value of the claim; too slow in bringing cases to a conclusion and too unequal: there is a lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant”. His recommendations, alongside several others have been given significant weight within Australia, with the Attorney General initiating the National Alternative Dispute Resolution

In accordance with HR.com, at its most fundamental, arbitration is a method of dispute solution; arbitrations are confidential, jurisdictive determination of a disagreement, conducted an impartial third individual. An arbitration hearing might necessitate the utilization of an individual arbitrator otherwise a tribunal. A tribunal entails of any quantity of arbitrators; though, some legal systems require on an odd numeral for understandable rationales of wanting to circumvent a stalemate. Although, one and three are the majority communal number of arbitrators. The disagreeing participants surrender their authority to determine the disagreement to the arbitrator(s). Furthermore, arbitrations are a substitute for litigation, and

From the economic point of view, Arthur O’Sullivan (American economist, Professor of Economics at Lewis & Clark College) explains that arbitration is a resolution technique in which a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides and enforceable. In simple words, arbitration is and alternative form for settlement of disputes with respect to court litigation. The World Intellectual Property Organization stresses that arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators for a binding decision. It means that instead of going to the court, two parties choose the arbitrators, by whose decision they agree to be bound. The National Association of Consumer Advocates explains that the arbitrator decides the rules, weighs the facts and arguments of both parties, and then decides the dispute. In some sense, the arbitrator is considered as a judge in court.

As out class text has demonstrated (Lau & Johnson, 2011), there are many options we can explore to resolve both civil and criminal disputes that arise within the business world. Ahead of approaching the situations presented in the assignment, let’s talk a little bit about the basic options one might choose to resolve such issues.

The concept of justice is essential to ADR processes. In the framework of ADR, the concept of justice involves the consent of the parties to play an active role in the resolution of their disputes; to assert some degree of control over the aftermath of their disputes and to arrive at a satisfactory, if not excellent settlements of their disputes, with regards to their interest.

Disputes generally, whether family disputes, communal disputes or commercial disputes encountered in the market place are unavoidable occurrences in our daily lives. As a result of this, various dispute resolution methods such as litigation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration and conciliation, amongst others have evolved over time to combat these disputes.

In relation to dispute settlement it becomes apparent that there is a need for the utilization of dispute settlement mechanisms. The advantages of these mechanisms seem to outweigh the disadvantages in the sense that these mechanisms are considerably cheaper than having to go through the process of litigation. Also there is the added bonus of the speed with which these settlements can be handled with. This is clearly a necessary factor for companies which require disputes to be handled speedily in relation to time constraints and budgetary considerations. The process of control offered to parties by these procedures is a significant factor to consider in relation to business owners and companies who are more accustomed to running their businesses than having their disputes being handled by the strict court process and discretion of a judge.

So after the discussion we can say that, arbitration is a dispute resolution processes in which the disputing parties present their case to a third party intermediary (or a panel of arbitrators) that examine all the evidence and then make a decision for the parties. This decision is usually binding. Like court-based adjudication, arbitration is adversarial. The presentations are made to prove one side right, the other wrong. Thus the parties assume they are working against each other, not cooperatively. Arbitration is generally not as formal as court adjudication, however, and the rules can be altered to some extent to meet the parties’ needs.