1. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

2. WHY IS ADR NEEDED? Courts expensive Courts time-consuming Courts traumatic Public hearings bring unwelcome media attention for individuals and companies ADR encouraged since 1990s Use of bodies like ACAS in employment disputes long recognised Lack of funding in other areas ‘encourages’ ADR

3. TYPES OF ADR Negotiation Mediation Formalised settlement conference Mediation Conciliation Arbitration Parties or their lawyers talk to each other Independent, expert third party, helps parties reach settlement ‘mini-trial’ with neutral adviser to evaluate and adjudicate Use of experts to sort out problems but parties in control Use of expert and they take more proactive role Governed by Arbitration Act 1996

4. ARBITRATION Aim – fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense Voluntary submission to arbitrate in writing Can be at any time and may use Scott v Avery clause Matter heard by one arbitrator or panel May be ‘paper’ arbitration or hearing Arbitrator makes decision in form of binding award Good – parties choose arbitrator, use of expert helpful if evidence problems, time and place flexible, private, quicker than court, cheaper than court, award final and enforceable Bad – unexpected legal points may be beyond arbitrator, professional arbitrator can be expensive, formal hearing is expensive, limited opportunities for appeal, can still be significant delays

5. TRIBUNALS Largely used to deal with social issues and only choice in some areas of law such as welfare Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act creates unified structure First-tier Tribunal – seven chambers – 300,000 cases per year – one judge and two lay members Upper Tribunal hears appeals – four chambers Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council keeping the working of tribunals under review Good – cheap, quick, informal, expert involvement Bad – lack of funding, still quite formal, some delays