Unit 4 - ADR Options: Adjudicative and Arbitration

A process where an impartial third party makes a decision on a dispute, offering more flexibility and privacy than court litigation.

A type of ADR where a neutral third party makes a binding decision, often used in commercial disputes and increasingly in family cases.

A decision made by an arbitrator in an arbitration case.

A legal process where parties agree that a dispute will be resolved by an arbitrator, not a court.

The application of Islamic law to legal disputes, which can be used in arbitration.

A process where a neutral expert makes a binding decision on specific issues requiring expert knowledge, often used when a full adjudication is not necessary.

A form of ADR where the parties control both the process and the outcome. It can involve just the parties or be facilitated by a neutral third party.

The simplest form of non-adjudicative ADR where one party makes an offer and the other accepts, reaching an agreement quickly.

A process where a neutral third party helps disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. It often involves open communication, exploring options, and finding common ground.

A neutral third party acts as a facilitator, helping disputing parties find common ground and reach an agreement.

Parties see the strengths and weaknesses of their case more clearly. This can help parties make more informed decisions during the process.

Parties can step outside inflexible stances and move towards a more collaborative approach.

A neutral third party's involvement can make offers and concessions more acceptable to both parties.

An early neutral and independent expert provides a written assessment of the key issues in a dispute.

The evaluation may focus on specific disputed points, like the interpretation of a contract or conflicting expert opinions.

The written assessment helps parties objectively evaluate their case and potentially reach a resolution.

A confidential offer to settle a dispute, which cannot be used as evidence in court unless made 'without prejudice save as to costs'.

A common and flexible method of resolving disputes, where parties or their lawyers directly communicate to try and reach a mutually acceptable solution.

A primary benefit of negotiation: parties retain full control over the decision-making process and outcomes.

A potential drawback of negotiation: the success depends on the skill and strategy of the negotiators, which can influence the final outcome.

One type of mediation service, focused on resolving small claims disputes efficiently through phone calls.

A type of mediation where lawyers and clients are present, typically lasting up to a full day.

The length of a mediation can vary depending on the complexity of the dispute, with complex commercial cases potentially lasting much longer than simple disputes.

A formal document used to initiate a dispute resolution process in an arbitration, outlining the details of the dispute and specifying the desired outcome.

The legal mechanism by which the court temporarily halts a legal proceeding (trial) and refers the parties to arbitration instead.

The process by which a court determines whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether the dispute falls under its terms, enabling the court to give directions for the resolution process.

An application filed with the court to extend the timeframe for initiating arbitration proceedings or other dispute resolution procedures.

The ability of an ADR process to address a wider range of issues compared to litigation, including those outside the scope of the court proceedings.

The focus on future interests in ADR processes emphasizes resolving disputes in a way that fosters positive relationships and outcomes, rather than solely addressing past events.

The constructive approach to disputes in ADR, where parties are guided towards solutions through active participation and facilitated dialogue, contrasting with the adversarial nature of litigation.

The proactive and cost-effective management of risk using ADR techniques, allowing parties to control potential costs and outcomes efficiently.

The importance of considering the cost effectiveness of different ADR options when selecting the most appropriate method.

The emphasis on timeliness in selecting ADR methods, favoring options that allow for swift resolution of disputes when speed is paramount.

The role of the courts in providing free mediation services in some cases, making ADR more accessible to individuals and businesses.

The use of written offers as a cost-effective approach for resolving legal disputes, particularly in cases with lower financial value.