Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
When parties want to resolve their claims without the interference of civil courts , they can opt for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In ADR , several methods can be picked according to the needs.
The four methods involved are Negotiation , Mediation , Consolidation and Arbitration. For the disputes of businesses and common people , the use of ADR can prove to be of huge benefit. Traditional civil court proceedings are usually time taking , expensive and can also compromise the reputation of businesses. Moreover , the court proceeding can bring forth even more complications because one of the parties can claim the decision to be unfavorable. Following is the description for all the forms of ADR , their advantages and drawbacks :
Firstly , Negotiation. It is usually the most common form of ADR to resolve the claim where both parties enter into a discussion face to face. Both parties negotiate and try to reach some common grounds. A solicitor can also be present who can further aid the parties. The biggest advantage of negotiation is that , it is very cheap , private and quickest way to resolve disputes. When parties are done with their decision , they can then inform the court about their settlement. However , in some cases these type of proceedings are done at the door of a court which can cause problems for the court.
Second , mediation. In this type of ADR , a neutral third party is involved which aids in the settlement of claims. Usually the mediator meets both parties in private to have an idea about their stance and then he comes up with a potential solution to reach some common grounds for both parties. Here , a mini trial can also be considered in which a decision making executive and an advisor is involved. The advisor will further try to remove complications and reach a common settlement for parties. One benefit of mini trial is that it can help the mediator to be more specific regarding the problem i.e it can help him narrow down the case. This will be of huge help in the court as it will lead to less time usage. Another benefit of mediation specially for corporate and businesses is that both parties are considered equally and at the end both parties are said to be victorious in their own regard. Because result of mediation is most probably based on compromise and commercial settlement , not specifically on the laws of country.
Third , consolidation. It is almost same like mediation except for the fact that , here the neutral third party is intensely and actively involved to remove misunderstandings or complications from both the parties and reach some common grounds i.e compromise. It is usually private and flexible in terms of timing.
In Arbitration , the last form of ADR , both parties agree to present their case to an arbitrator after signing a written agreement. An arbitrator is an experienced individual and acts just like a judge in the court settings. But opting for an arbitrator is obviously informal and less pressurizing for both parties. In some contracts “scott and avery” clause is written that means any dispute arising will be dealt by arbitration. The proceeding of arbitration can be done on paper or orally where both parties are made to sworn in by some oath. The arbitrator after hearing the claims and proofs issues a binding that is legally enforceable by the court.
In the civil courts , parties are dealt according to their budget. For example cases under 100k will be heard in country courts only. In this regard ADR can be beneficial in terms of money (i.e it is cheaper) and the time taken to resolve the case. ADR is usually more confidential than court system so there is no fear of bad reputation and publicity and it also allows flexible timing for hearing unlike the court system where dates are decided by court and must be abided by the parties. Flexible timing also eradicates the unnecessary delay in the proceedings as seen in courts. ADR has some drawbacks too. For example the outcome of an ADR is not a binding except for arbitration. This can be a cause of the problem where if the parties are not satisfied with the ADR they still will have to go to court and thus ADR has just proved to be a waste of time. Moreover , in ADR , unlike civil court system , legal funding is not done. This can be a concern for an individual entering in ADR against some corporate or enterprise who will come up with a legal entity e.g some professionally trained lawyer. Thus , ADR can be much expensive in these type of cases for an individual.
After analyzing all the major points , we can conclude that ADR is an informal and less stressful way of dealing with disputes. ADR can provide us with unique solutions that are not simply possible in the court settings. For the professional firms or corporate , ADR is the go to guy as it provides an easy way to deal with claims preserving their reputation in market. Even if ADR does not end up solving a dispute it can still make the case concise for the court to make a quick decision.
