Adr Evaulation Flashcards
AD: non-adversarial nature
Most types are this, encouraging parties to cooperate and compromise. This approach is beneficial for maintaining and improving relationships between parties, as it avoids the winner-loser scenario typical of court cases
AD: cost - effectiveness
It is generally a far cheaper way of dealing with a civil dispute, unlike the costs of courts. Accessible option for many who might otherwise be deterred by the high expenses of litigation
AD: specialist advice and guidance
There are specialist ADR companies that can advise and guide parties. This expertise allows for a more proactive and informed way of dealing with disputes, enhancing the likelihood of a satisfactory resolution
AD: speed
Tends to resolve disputes more quickly than court hearing. Process avoids the delays associated with waiting for court dates
AD: informality
most types of ADR can be conducted quickly and without the formality of court proceedings. the absence of strict rules of disclosure and witnesses makes the process more straightforward
AD : reduced stress
less stressful than court litigation, as it isn’t formal making the experience less daunting for the parties
AD: flexibility
offers greater flexibility in terms of when and where the dispute resolution takes place. parties can schedule hearings to fit around them
DIS: lack of legal precedent
decisions made through ADR do not create legal precedents. this is negative in cases where a clear legal principle or guideline is needed for future references
DIS: enforcement issues
while arbitration decisions are usually binding, other forms of ADR like mediation and negotiation rely on the voluntary compliance of parties, can lead to issues if one party didn’t honour it
DIS: imbalance of power
processes can sometimes exacerbate power imbalances between parties, like if one of the party are more experience
DIS: limited discovery
The informal nature of ADR often means there are fewer opportunities for thorough discovery and evidence gathering compared to court litigation. This can result in one party lacking essential information to support their case.
DIS: potential for bias
it is a risk that the mediator or arbitrator might be biased, whether consciously or unconsciously, could influence the outcome of the dispute resolution process and lead to perception of unfairness
DIS: lack of public scrutiny
processes are typically private, meaning there is less public scrutiny and transparency compared to court cases. Can be negative in disputes where public interest or accountability is important
