Methods like mediation, conciliation and arbitration, are becoming an alternative source of formal litigation. People are more familiar with these processes as they understand the advantages of these process and how they will assist with parties while resolving their dispute. 1 Since methods like mediation, is considered by some people to be a more appropriate resolution method, some may argue that mediation should form part of the civil pre-trial procedure as it will speed up the procedure, as well as reduce the litigation fee. However, the formality of civil pre-trial procedure ensures that both parties have an equal opportunity to present their case. Mediation, on the other hand, encourages informality. Therefore, sometimes a weaker party
…show more content…
It is a hearing conducted in a court prior to the substantive hearing [where a presiding trial judge can give instructions to the parties regarding how the trial will proceed]. 5 In contrast, due to the consensual nature of mediation, it provides an opportunity for parties to maintain a good relationship between them. Whereas, the adversarial nature of formal courts is more outcome focus
and uses strict rules of evidence and procedure, meaning that it will only result in a win lose situation. 6 This way, only one party is satisfied which may lead to destroying the relationship between parties. Therefore, as the civil pre-trial procedure is more formal than ADR methods, it does not fit in with the aim of …show more content…
The courtliness of trialling a case in court contradicts with the aim of ADR which is its informality. However, in some civil disputes, parties will benefit more from going through mediation as it is interest based so parties’ relationship are less likely to be damaged as a result of allowing parties to reach a mutually accepted agreement. Yet, mediators do not have the experience and expertise to hear a range of civil case as each civil case vary in their complexity and seriousness. It is not the matter of fact that the issue will be resolve through compromising. Therefore, mediation should remain part of an ADR method and formal civil litigations will have the lengthy civil pre-trial
It is a hearing conducted in a court prior to the substantive hearing [where a presiding trial judge can give instructions to the parties regarding how the trial will proceed]. 5 In contrast, due to the consensual nature of mediation, it provides an opportunity for parties to maintain a good relationship between them. Whereas, the adversarial nature of formal courts is more outcome focus
and uses strict rules of evidence and procedure, meaning that it will only result in a win lose situation. 6 This way, only one party is satisfied which may lead to destroying the relationship between parties. Therefore, as the civil pre-trial procedure is more formal than ADR methods, it does not fit in with the aim of …show more content…
The courtliness of trialling a case in court contradicts with the aim of ADR which is its informality. However, in some civil disputes, parties will benefit more from going through mediation as it is interest based so parties’ relationship are less likely to be damaged as a result of allowing parties to reach a mutually accepted agreement. Yet, mediators do not have the experience and expertise to hear a range of civil case as each civil case vary in their complexity and seriousness. It is not the matter of fact that the issue will be resolve through compromising. Therefore, mediation should remain part of an ADR method and formal civil litigations will have the lengthy civil pre-trial