ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alternative dispute resolution allows disputes to be settled outside the courtroom. Dispute
resolution providers are meant to provide quick and cost-effective resolution measures. The
efficacy of dispute resolution techniques is determined by how effectively the techniques are
able to provide acceptable and satisfactory resolutions for disputing parties. For many years now,
court processes have always been considered the main avenue for dispute resolution. This is due
to their flexibility and ability to provide litigants with more options and their standard application
of the law. Proponents of the court system as the mainstream mode of conflict resolution are
further supported by the fact that most courts are impartial. On the downside, court processes
take time to conclude, and longer court processes could even be more expensive. Even after a
long and expensive process, the outcome may not be favorable for either party. Alternative
dispute resolution techniques become an option for disputing parties to explore quick and cost-
effective resolution.
Public administration of justice was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected
operations in all public spaces 1 . Before courts adopted virtual hearings, a significant amount of
time had been lost. Civil justice reforms such as the HMCTS E-filing system provide new
technologies that improve efficiency through convenience. Digitization of the legal system does
not encourage people to seek alternative dispute resolution measures 2 . As such, even with the
integration of technology, court processes may not always provide quick solutions. Court
processes additionally have many options that either party can explore before all available
options are exhausted. Citizens have unimpeded access to courts. If disputing parties are
dissatisfied with the outcome of a court, they can seek redress in a higher court. Such dynamics
1 Masood Ahmed, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution During The Covid-19 Crisis And Beyond’
[2021] King’s Law Journal.
2 Alisdair A. Gillespie and Siobhan Weare, ’19. Alternative Dispute Resolution’ [2019] The
English Legal System.

Surname 3
further prove that following the standard court process may impede a cost-effective solution.
Considering the above, cost-effective solutions may only be achieved through alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods.
The technological advances in the public administration of justice are also applicable in
ADR methods. This is essential because a significant percentage of the open cases are civil. The
benefit of the ADR techniques is that they provide a variety of options to choose from, and most
of them have specialized activities. For example, depending on the nature of the dispute, one
may opt for mediation or ombudsmen. The Financial Ombudsmen Service specializes in disputes
arising from financial services such as Banking. The Housing Ombudsman may handle
Landlord-tenant disputes. The ombudsmen handle a far less caseload as compared to the court
system. In terms of outcomes, ombudsmen provide the same or even better standards of the
outcome within less time as compared to courts. Ombudsmen offer far greater benefit in terms of
cost-effectiveness than courts, especially because they are free to the complainant. Also,
ombudsmen offer far less publicity since the public is less concerned with ombudsmen
proceedings.
Tribunals are another option for parties that seek faster and cost-effective dispute
resolution. Though the structure of many tribunals This informal, they are just as effective in
conflict resolution. Tribunals are designed to be specific to the conflict and, in some cases, may
offer better outcomes than courts due to specialization. For example, there are tribunals that
handle ex-service and armed forces complaints, tax matters, immigration, property disputes,
social entitlement, education and health. The tribunal members are drawn from the legal field
and other professional fields, depending on the nature of the tribunal. For example, a war pension

Surname 4
and armed forces compensation tribunal is headed by a qualified and judge and ex-servicemen
form part of the tribunal.
Collaborative dispute resolution (CDR) is another flexible out-of-court dispute resolution
technique. This process provides far greater benefits because it works based on the agreement
and commitment of the litigating parties to find a working solution. Collaborative law practice
may not be as cost-efficient because should the disputing parties fail to reach a resolution within
the first series of meetings, they can appoint new lawyers. However, in terms of speed of conflict
resolution, CDR offers great value because it is flexible enough to allow the application of
technologies such as zoom, which can allow the meeting series to be conducted remotely.
Mediation is an ADR technique that may also provide quick and cost-effective solutions.
Mediation allows disputing parties to find agreeable out-of-court solutions. Mediation also
allows confidentiality of the proceedings for disputes that would rather be kept private. The
disputing parties exercise more control over the process, creating convenience, and the parties
are not obligated to accept the outcomes of mediation processes. Additionally, mediation does
not negate the need for other dispute resolution techniques. In fact, the court process can adjust
to incorporate mediation. Courts have the ability to pause proceedings and allow for negotiations
through mediation. The Ministry of justice allows for mediation in family disputes through the
family mediation council. Like other ADR techniques, FMC allows the integration of
technological tools to facilitate virtual meetings. Mediation offers cost-effectiveness and offers
the disputing parties more control over the situation. For example, family mediation is free for
individuals eligible for legal aid. Court processes support ADR techniques as can be seen in
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust 2004 3 . The implication of the Supreme Court of

3 Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA, 3002 (EWCA).

Surname 5
Judicature ruling was that there is a general expectation that disputing parties should engage in
reasonable mediation before civil trials can be explored as a viable option. Further, the refusal of
any of the disputing parties to partake in an invitation to mediate is considered unreasonable and
the courts have liberty to warrant cost sanctions. In PGF II SA v OMS Company Ltd [2013] the
justices found that the refusal of parties to respond to an invitation to ADR is considered
unreasonable conduct of litigation 4 .
In conclusion, as far as conflicts are concerned, disputing parties are expected to utilize
the available resources to find quick and cost-effective solutions to their disputes. This paper has
highlighted the various alternatives available and demonstrated the ability of each alternative to
provide fair processes and acceptable outcomes. Regardless of whether or not the alternatives are
regulated by Government, and whether or not they are online, they provide workable solutions
for litigants interested in avoiding long and expensive court trials.

4 PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA, Civ 1288 (EWCA)

Surname 6

Bibliography

Ahmed M, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution During The Covid-19 Crisis And Beyond’ [2021]
King’s Law Journal
Gillespie A, and Weare S, ’19. Alternative Dispute Resolution’ [2019] The English Legal System
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA, 3002 (EWCA)
PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA, Civ 1288 (EWCA)