Disadvantages Of ADR

Since the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, alternative methods of dispute resolution have become increasingly popular, playing a significant part in the civil justice system as a means of settling disputes without court proceedings [1]. Even so, the Rt. Hon Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his paper to the Faculty of Mediation and ADR, stated that although some supporters of ADR consider all civil disputes suitable for ADR and can benefit from it, such enthusiasm may do little to “help promote the wider use of ADR in the long run” and that courts do have a “vital –indispensable– part to play in the resolution of the many categories of dispute”[2]. This essay focuses on what is meant by the term “alternative dispute resolution” and the extent to which the author agrees with Lord Irvine’s comment. (100 words)

“Alternative dispute resolution“ (“ADR”) is an umbrella term encompassing various methods for resolving disputes, including: mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and other methods such as adjudication, expert determination and ombudsman, among others. Its main objective is to encourage and promote the settlement of legal disputes without the need to commence litigations [3]. For ADR to succeed it must be done fairly, to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, and the outcome must be valid

Firstly, an imbalance of power may arise where one party is more powerful than the other; this could undermine the mutual nature of ADR. Secondly, a decision made by way of ADR is not one that is imposed upon the parties; consequentially, a court order may have to be obtained so as to enforce the agreement. Thirdly, some disputes are unsuitable for ADR, including: cases involving a point of law, some family disputes (eg. domestic violence), disputes requiring an urgent solution, those involving over one party and cases where the prospects of success are little or none [7]. All of these cases are best suited for civil litigation. (290