Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods encompass approaches such as mediation, negotiation and arbitration, which serve as means for parties or individuals to resolve disputes without going to court. Many people choose ADR as it’s typically more cost-effective, efficient and friendly than traditional means of dispute resolution.
The Different Types of ADR
One form of alternative dispute resolution, mediation, aims to help disputing parties find a mutually acceptable solution. The process is confidential, with the mediator encouraging communication and facilitating cooperation where possible.
Conciliation is similar to mediation but is typically used in disputes that have more legal ramifications, such as those around employment. Like mediators, conciliators do not decide the outcome but may offer independent suggestions and advice.
Negotiation, meanwhile, involves the disputing parties coming together, either directly or through their legal representatives, to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve their differences. Experts in ADR, like Edgar Paltzer, know that the process is often an informal one and is non-binding.
In arbitration, an independent arbitrator makes a decision on the dispute. This decision is legally binding and thereby reduces the likelihood that the case will later end up in court.
To learn about another type of ADR called expert determination, take a look at the embedded infographic.
The Benefits of ADR
Crucially, ADR offers the opportunity for parties to resolve a dispute without going to court. As well as being a lengthy process, the latter can be costly and cause (or exacerbate) bad feeling between the individuals involved. Going to court can be stressful and is often an intimidating prospect.
ADR tends to be a significantly quicker process, with resolution sometimes possible within as little as a day with some methods. It’s also much more cost effective and less formal, making it appealing to many.
Furthermore, ADR can be more adaptable, empowering disputing parties to choose their arbitrator or mediator and shape the process to meet their requirements. This often enables more individualised, inventive resolutions, tailored to the unique needs of the process’s participants.
Are There Cases Where ADR Is Unsuitable?
ADR isn’t always an appropriate method of dispute resolution. For example, ADR tends to be less suitable than litigation if there is a need for enforcement, evidential rules, interim orders, court orders or precedent; a power imbalance between the parties; case complexities; or quasi-criminal allegations. Where there is a need for expert evidence, live evidence or the analysis of complex evidence, litigation is usually more appropriate.