D2 - Evaluate the Different
Methods of ADR:
,Cost &
Representation:
Tribunal: Legal representation is not essential to have in Tribunals; and this is an advantage because it’s inexpensi
A further benefit is that Tribunals do not charge a fee.
Public funding is available in some Tribunal cases (for example Mental Health Tribunals).
Generally in a Tribunal, each party pays their own legal costs and fees, rather than the losing party paying
costs of both parties.
There is a very limited amount of public funding in Tribunals; and usually public funding is not available fo
representation before a Tribunal. This is a significant limitation because it affects the more disadvantaged
members of society, as the other party may be able to afford legal representation.
The Tribunal system was established to assist the weaker members of society, hence this public funding
weakens the system.
Arbitration: Likewise, there are no court fees, and the use of Lawyers is discouraged.
The use of Arbitration frees the court from dealing with too many disputes, and this reduces the amount o
costs and puts less demand on the courts. Therefore, the state benefits from Arbitration.
Some costs may be high due to the length of time that some disputes may take to be resolved.
Some Arbitrators might charge high fees for their professional services.
Mediation: The process is not expensive, there are no court fees, and the use of a legal representative is discourage
Public funding is available for Mediation in Family cases (subject to qualification).
Conciliation: Legal representatives are available, however they are highly discouraged.
Public funding is not obtainable in Conciliation.
Negotiation: This process is the least expensive of all forms of ADR.
There are no court or legal fees, unless legal representatives are instructed at a later date. The only expe
be parties’ time, postage or the cost for a phone call.
Normally, Lawyers aren’t used in Negotiation.
, Summary:
Overall, I can deduce that all the types of ADR are very good regarding cost and
representation. Nonetheless, I believe that Arbitration meets this criteria the best becau
its advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Arbitration benefits the state significantly
because it frees the courts from dealing with too many disputes, and this reduces the
amount of court costs and puts less demand on the courts. Likewise, Arbitration is
inexpensive and the use of legal representatives is usually discouraged; hence Arbitrati
is the best in terms of Cost and Representation.
Methods of ADR:
,Cost &
Representation:
Tribunal: Legal representation is not essential to have in Tribunals; and this is an advantage because it’s inexpensi
A further benefit is that Tribunals do not charge a fee.
Public funding is available in some Tribunal cases (for example Mental Health Tribunals).
Generally in a Tribunal, each party pays their own legal costs and fees, rather than the losing party paying
costs of both parties.
There is a very limited amount of public funding in Tribunals; and usually public funding is not available fo
representation before a Tribunal. This is a significant limitation because it affects the more disadvantaged
members of society, as the other party may be able to afford legal representation.
The Tribunal system was established to assist the weaker members of society, hence this public funding
weakens the system.
Arbitration: Likewise, there are no court fees, and the use of Lawyers is discouraged.
The use of Arbitration frees the court from dealing with too many disputes, and this reduces the amount o
costs and puts less demand on the courts. Therefore, the state benefits from Arbitration.
Some costs may be high due to the length of time that some disputes may take to be resolved.
Some Arbitrators might charge high fees for their professional services.
Mediation: The process is not expensive, there are no court fees, and the use of a legal representative is discourage
Public funding is available for Mediation in Family cases (subject to qualification).
Conciliation: Legal representatives are available, however they are highly discouraged.
Public funding is not obtainable in Conciliation.
Negotiation: This process is the least expensive of all forms of ADR.
There are no court or legal fees, unless legal representatives are instructed at a later date. The only expe
be parties’ time, postage or the cost for a phone call.
Normally, Lawyers aren’t used in Negotiation.
, Summary:
Overall, I can deduce that all the types of ADR are very good regarding cost and
representation. Nonetheless, I believe that Arbitration meets this criteria the best becau
its advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Arbitration benefits the state significantly
because it frees the courts from dealing with too many disputes, and this reduces the
amount of court costs and puts less demand on the courts. Likewise, Arbitration is
inexpensive and the use of legal representatives is usually discouraged; hence Arbitrati
is the best in terms of Cost and Representation.
