Muhammed Awais
M2- Alternative Dispute Resolution
In this report I will compare and contrast Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with solving a case in a court. I
will explain the similarities and differences between Alternative Dispute Resolution and solving a case in court.
Comparisons between ADR and civil courts
The first difference between Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and civil courts is that ADR is a less formal
process, also when people complete this it is in a much relaxed environment. There is no outfit for the legal
advisor to wear, so they will usually wear casual clothing or a basic suit. Also when in ADR you don’t need to
be represented by a lawyer. On the other hand civil courts are very formal, when you go to the court sitting it is
like a court room. Judges will need to wear an outfit, a robe is worn along with a gown and a wig. This is an
outfit which most judges must wear. Also the people in the court will need to attend the court with a lawyer, also
you have to attend court with the date which will be provided by the court. Lastly in a court you must swear by
an oath.
Another difference between ADR and civil court is representation. In an ADR it is not important for a lawyer to
attend the hearing. People which are involved will usually bring friends along with them so that they can
represent them and help them. Most of the time when people attend these hearings they will represent
themselves. However in civil courts it is very rare that someone won’t come into the court without a lawyer.
Without a lawyer it is said that you will be disadvantaged this is due to complex cases which only lawyers may
understand.
Another difference between ADR and civil court is the cost. In an ADR it is 100% cheaper than in the courts.
This used to be a free service which now charges people money to use it. But it is only a small charge. Also
when going in an ADR you will not need to pay for a lawyer, they can be very expensive. Whereas in the civil
courts it will cost you a lot of money. It will cost you for the court fees and there will also be a cost for legal
representation.
The speed of which the case in ADR is resolved is very quick whereas going to court will cost time as well as
money. The ADR can set a date quicker than courts, sometimes the parties are allowed to set a date by
themselves. In the ADR it can take just one day to settle the case. However in the civil court, the hearings are
really slow and daunting for both parties. Sometimes there are complex cases which take time to be heard in
court. To get a date for you case to be tried by the judge can be a long set date.
For a case to be referred you have to be tried by an ADR, if it isn’t resolved by this then the case may be
referred to court. People should try ADR first as it is known for judges to not try cases which haven’t had ADR
done first. If the people in question have tried ADR and it doesn’t seem to work they can then take the case to
court. The court is overwhelmed with cases and if someone tries to go to court without ADR they will get a firm
warning by the judge. The courts should be a last resort for people, they shouldn’t go to court for a small case as
it is wasting time of the judge and their own time. The people should try other methods to sort their problem out
first.
The people who sit and judge at an ADR court have no legal expertise on the matter. They are not experts in the
law, they may have expertise in a single subject for example have expertise about education. However they will
not have more expertise than a judge. So if the argument was about an employment dispute a member of the
trade union may sit to represent the people. However judges will have legal knowledge on the matter which they
need to sort out. To be a judge a person will need have 10 years of representing people in court e.g. lawyer.
However they will not have specific knowledge about a subject whereas the people which sit in ADR have this.
In an ADR gathering people do not know the certainty or what the outcome may become, this is because the
ADR don’t follow precedent. The decisions which are made in ADR are inconsistent, this is not fair as the
people which will be judged at an ADR meeting will not know what the outcome will be. However in the civil
court they will need to follow judicial precedent, as previous decisions will become binding for the court. This is
M2- Alternative Dispute Resolution
In this report I will compare and contrast Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with solving a case in a court. I
will explain the similarities and differences between Alternative Dispute Resolution and solving a case in court.
Comparisons between ADR and civil courts
The first difference between Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and civil courts is that ADR is a less formal
process, also when people complete this it is in a much relaxed environment. There is no outfit for the legal
advisor to wear, so they will usually wear casual clothing or a basic suit. Also when in ADR you don’t need to
be represented by a lawyer. On the other hand civil courts are very formal, when you go to the court sitting it is
like a court room. Judges will need to wear an outfit, a robe is worn along with a gown and a wig. This is an
outfit which most judges must wear. Also the people in the court will need to attend the court with a lawyer, also
you have to attend court with the date which will be provided by the court. Lastly in a court you must swear by
an oath.
Another difference between ADR and civil court is representation. In an ADR it is not important for a lawyer to
attend the hearing. People which are involved will usually bring friends along with them so that they can
represent them and help them. Most of the time when people attend these hearings they will represent
themselves. However in civil courts it is very rare that someone won’t come into the court without a lawyer.
Without a lawyer it is said that you will be disadvantaged this is due to complex cases which only lawyers may
understand.
Another difference between ADR and civil court is the cost. In an ADR it is 100% cheaper than in the courts.
This used to be a free service which now charges people money to use it. But it is only a small charge. Also
when going in an ADR you will not need to pay for a lawyer, they can be very expensive. Whereas in the civil
courts it will cost you a lot of money. It will cost you for the court fees and there will also be a cost for legal
representation.
The speed of which the case in ADR is resolved is very quick whereas going to court will cost time as well as
money. The ADR can set a date quicker than courts, sometimes the parties are allowed to set a date by
themselves. In the ADR it can take just one day to settle the case. However in the civil court, the hearings are
really slow and daunting for both parties. Sometimes there are complex cases which take time to be heard in
court. To get a date for you case to be tried by the judge can be a long set date.
For a case to be referred you have to be tried by an ADR, if it isn’t resolved by this then the case may be
referred to court. People should try ADR first as it is known for judges to not try cases which haven’t had ADR
done first. If the people in question have tried ADR and it doesn’t seem to work they can then take the case to
court. The court is overwhelmed with cases and if someone tries to go to court without ADR they will get a firm
warning by the judge. The courts should be a last resort for people, they shouldn’t go to court for a small case as
it is wasting time of the judge and their own time. The people should try other methods to sort their problem out
first.
The people who sit and judge at an ADR court have no legal expertise on the matter. They are not experts in the
law, they may have expertise in a single subject for example have expertise about education. However they will
not have more expertise than a judge. So if the argument was about an employment dispute a member of the
trade union may sit to represent the people. However judges will have legal knowledge on the matter which they
need to sort out. To be a judge a person will need have 10 years of representing people in court e.g. lawyer.
However they will not have specific knowledge about a subject whereas the people which sit in ADR have this.
In an ADR gathering people do not know the certainty or what the outcome may become, this is because the
ADR don’t follow precedent. The decisions which are made in ADR are inconsistent, this is not fair as the
people which will be judged at an ADR meeting will not know what the outcome will be. However in the civil
court they will need to follow judicial precedent, as previous decisions will become binding for the court. This is
