Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Alternate disputes - Coggle Diagram
Alternate disputes
arbitration
The voluntary submission by the parties of the dispute to the judgement of some person other than a judge. This agreement is usually written and indeed the arbitration act 1996 applies only to written arbitration agreements. What size way in which this process is carried out as it is left almost entirely to the parties agreement.
used to cover two processes
→courts use a more informal procedure to hear cases
→ the parties agree to submit a claim to private arbitration, another way of resolving the dispute without the need of court.
the principles
→ the fair resolution to dispute by an impartial tribunal about unnecessary delay or expense.
→ the party should be free to agree how the disputes are resolved only to such safeguards as a necessary in the public interest.
advantages
→ the parties may choose an arbitrator, therefore decided whether the matter is best out with my technical expert, a lawyer or a professional arbitrator.
→ if there is a question of quality this can be decided by an expert in the particular field.
→it can be arranged to suit both parties.
→ flexible and the parties can choose what is the most suited to the situation.
→ it is dealt with in private and there will be no publicity.
→ i'll be resolved more quickly than a court hearing
Disadvantages
→an unexpected legal point may arise, which is not suitable for a decision by a non-lawyer arbitrator.
→if a professional arbitrator is in use and the fees may be expensive.
→ it will be expensive if the parties opt for a formal hearing.
→ Rights of appeal are limited.
→ delays are nearly as great as in the court.
Negotiation
It is completely private and the quickest and cheapest method of settling a dispute. If the parties are not going to come to an agreement, they may decide to take a step by instructing solicitors, and their solicitors which usually try to negotiate a settlement. When when the proceedings have commenced lawyers for the parties were often continue to negotiate on behalf of their clients. Once the parties involve lawyers there will be a cost element, the longer the negotiations go on, the higher the cost. Cases drag on for years, only to end in a settlement agreement the morning that the case is due to start.
Advantages
→ the parties can negotiate themselves there is no need for lawyers or other people in the process.
→ are used at any point in the dispute from the beginning right up to the start of the court hearing.
→ the cheapest method of resolving a dispute, especially when the parties do the negotiation themselves.
→ negotiation resolution can include future business deals, this can also be done in mediation constellation but cannot be done where the court makes a decision.
Disadvantages
→ are you not been successful so other ADR or other court proceedings have to be used.
→ it's not suitable where the parties are very antagonistic towards each other since, they will not be prepared to cooperate in finding a solution.
→if they are repeated and negotiation it may prolong the whole issue.
Mediation
where a mutual mediator helps the parties to reach a compromise solution. All of this is to consult with each party and see how much common ground that is between them. They explore the position of each party, giving offers while keeping confidentiality. They will not usually tell the parties their views. It is only suitable if there is some hope that the parties can cooperate.
advantages
→ parties can withdraw from the process at any moment, when a compromise cannot be reached about the agreement of both parties.
→ a mediators position does not need to be strictly legal sticking to the letter of the law, it's more likely to be based on commercial, common sense and compromise.
→ a companies is needed to continue to do business with each other in the future, It may include agreements about the conduct of future business between parties.
→ avoids the adversarial conflict in the courtroom and the winner/lose a result of court proceedings, it has been said by the mediator everyone wins.
Disadvantages
→ the matter will not be resolved with envy, necessary to go to court after the failed attempt in such situations there is additional cost and delays in resolution.
→if it is successful, it requires a skilled conciliator with 'natural talent, honed skills and accumulated experience'.
→amounts paid into mediated settlements are lower than the amounts agreed in other settlements, and considerably lower the amount of ordered by the court.
Conciliation
Where in a neutral third-party helps to resolve the dispute, the main difference for mediation is that the consiliator will usually play a more proactive role. The consulate to discuss is it issues of both parties in order to help them reach a better understanding for each other's position. Expected for the conciliation to ground for compromise, another possible basis for settlement. How did they have no authority to seek evidence of cool witnesses. It's not necessarily lead to a resolution, it may be necessary to continue with a court action.
Advantages
→ parties are in control I can withdraw from the process at any point, also a compromise cannot be reached about the agreement of both parties.
→ the position of the conciliator later does not need to be strictly legal sticking to the letter of the law.
→ it's easier for companies to continue to do business with each other in the future, it may include an agreement about about the conduct of future business between parties.
Disadvantages
→ if the matter is not resolved, it would be necessary to go to court after the first attempt, leading to an additional cost and delay in resolution.
→ if successful it requires a conciliator with 'natural talent, honed skills and accumulated experience'.
-
-