VCAT vs Courts

[Shaye]

We've been given a 10 mark extended response question as homework these holidays about the relationship between VCAT and the Courts...

'Civil disputes should be resolved through VCAT rather than the courts.' to what extent to you agree with this statement. Justify your answer. (10 marks)

but I'm not sure how to structure my response.. whether to list 5strengths/5weaknesses or a combination of both from both VCAT and the Courts....   heeelllpppp please!!

[eeps]

I would have an introduction and conclusion in your response (2 marks in total). In terms of structure, I would go with 4 strengths and weaknesses of VCAT and the courts (8 marks). So, you’d have one paragraph highlighting a strength of VCAT/and the corresponding weakness of the courts to that. Next paragraph would be a strength of the courts/weakness of VCAT and so forth. For example, using VCAT is much cheaper than going to court as there are no court costs and legal representation is discouraged. The only fee is applying to VCAT and that is nominal. Whereas, on the other hand, going to court can be an expensive process with court costs and fees for legal representation and advice. Furthermore, the cost for a jury can be significant and there are no guarantees of winning the case. That’s just my approach to the question. There are alternative methods in which to answer the question, just try to keep your structure simple and fluent.

[meganrobyn]

I would have an introduction and conclusion in your response (2 marks in total). In terms of structure, I would go with 4 strengths and weaknesses of VCAT and the courts (8 marks). So, you’d have one paragraph highlighting a strength of VCAT/and the corresponding weakness of the courts to that. Next paragraph would be a strength of the courts/weakness of VCAT and so forth. For example, using VCAT is much cheaper than going to court as there are no court costs and legal representation is discouraged. The only fee is applying to VCAT and that is nominal. Whereas, on the other hand, going to court can be an expensive process with court costs and fees for legal representation and advice. Furthermore, the cost for a jury can be significant and there are no guarantees of winning the case. That’s just my approach to the question. There are alternative methods in which to answer the question, just try to keep your structure simple and fluent.

Totally agree. Just two things to add: many teachers don't give you any marks for opinion (even though you need to include it) so just don't bank on getting anything for that part; and I always recommend having more points than the number of marks for 'evaluate-type' questions, so you have back-up if the examiner doesn't like one or two.

[Shaye]

Thanks for the advice! I've done a rough draft, which still isnt finished. Some comments/tips would be great

Courts and tribunals employ a range of methods to resolve disputes, particularly in civil matters. Civil disputes can be resolved through the courts or more commonly, through alternative dispute resolution methods. Courts and tribunals are both very effective dispute resolution methods where the strengths of one balance out the weaknesses of the other and visa versa; both are necessary parts of our justice system.

VCAT is more accessible to the public than a hearing through the courts and is therefore more appropriate for small civil claims. Although, not all civil disputes can be heard through VCAT as it does not use methods appropriate for larger claims. VCAT hearings are not subject to the strict rules of evidence and procedure used in courts so parties disputing over large sums of money would not feel satisfied with the outcome of their case if it was dealt with simply by mediation or conciliation. Courts can offer parties this satisfaction with the outcome of the case because the strict rules that are to be followed provide a sense of fairness between parties and ensures they are being treated equally.

VCAT provides the community with a low-cost method of resolving a dispute, as there is only a minimal application fee and parties do not require legal representation. These low costs mean that resolving civil disputes through VCAT would increase the community’s awareness of their rights and would encourage more people to have their injustices rectified. However having legal representation when resolving a dispute through the courts is a strength of this type of resolution as it means that both parties are, theoretically, on equal footing before a judge.

The informal approach taken by lists of VCAT mean that the resolution of disputes is faster than the heavily structured approach taken by courts. This is why smaller less serious cases are best dealt with by VCAT

Both the courts and VCAT are presided over by experienced legal professionals, who have developed expertise in their relevant jurisdiction or list. However the courts also allow for some disputes to be decided by a jury of peers for more serious cases

[meganrobyn]

Better to start with your opinion, so get rid of the first two sentences.

Also, for me there are a few places where a fundamental mixing of venues and methods is done - which is often a problem caused by the way the topic is taught. Courts and VCAT are venues, and they both use ALL of the methods, so it doesn't make sense to say that you go to court OR use other methods. You can go to court and use a method such as mediation before or instead of a judicial determination hearing or arbitration; but exactly the same thing, word for word, can be said about VCAT. In both venues you file a claim to have a hearing, but before the hearing either venue may send you to try mediation or conciliation if they have a program and your case is appropriate. But the hearing is the default. Hearings can either be arbitration (in the Mag Ct or Supreme Ct for some matters, and in VCAT if a senior or ordinary member is hearing the case); or they can be JD (normal hearing in a courtroom, or in VCAT if the Pres or a VP is hearing the case).

Because of this blending of methods within each venue, we don't use the term 'ADR' anymore.

Apart from that, I think it's good! Just make sure you put a bit of evidence for, or an example of, each point to back it up. Eg it's easy to say VCAT is more accessible - but why?

[Shaye]

I've taken your advice and tidied it up a little. Still hoping to add a few extra points before I hand it in on Monday..

Courts and tribunals are both very effective dispute resolution methods where the strengths of one balance out the weaknesses of the other and visa versa; both are necessary components of our justice system.

VCAT is more accessible to the public than judicial determination and is therefore more appropriate for small civil claims. This is because of the low application fees of VCAT – which can be waivered if the Principle Registrar thinks it is likely the fee will cause financial hardship – combined with the fact that parties are able to represent themselves. These low costs mean that resolving civil disputes through VCAT both increase the community’s awareness of their rights and would encourage more people to have their injustices rectified. Although, not all civil disputes can be heard through VCAT as it does not use methods appropriate for larger claims: VCAT hearings are not subject to the strict rules of evidence and procedure used in courts so parties disputing over large sums of money would not feel satisfied with the outcome of their case if it was dealt with simply by mediation or conciliation. Courts can offer parties this satisfaction with the outcome of the case because the strict rules that are to be followed provide a sense of fairness between parties and ensures they are being treated equally. In addition, having legal representation when resolving a dispute through the courts is a strength of this type of resolution as it means that both parties are, theoretically, on equal footing before a judge.

The informal approach taken by lists of VCAT mean that the resolution of disputes is faster than the heavily structured approach taken by courts. This is why smaller less serious cases are best dealt with by VCAT rather than having to follow lengthy procedures for such a small claim. Larger civil cases are best dealt with by the courts as the expertise of the judges, and the operation of the jury system, allowing for a more superior outcome. For these reasons, tribunals can help relieve the strain on the court system by resolving many civil claims, allowing the courts to hear more complex cases. The existence of a court hierarchy also allows for dissatisfied parties to appeal their cases to a higher court if they feel the decision was unjust. VCAT does not allow for this avenue of appeal, except on a point of law, which is a rarity in minor civil claims.

[meganrobyn]

I really like it!!

Only things would be to:

A) Change 'not be satisfied...by med or con' to 'would not be satisfied with the outcome of their case if it was dealt with according to the less detailed examination of evidence and law used in a VCAT arbitration hearing'. You're comparing courts with VCAT here rather than med/con with jud det.

B) Maybe one more para before repeating your opinion? Depends how many marks it's worth.

Great evidence for your claims given, too!

[Newton]

I would have an introduction and conclusion in your response (2 marks in total). In terms of structure, I would go with 4 strengths and weaknesses of VCAT and the courts (8 marks). So, you’d have one paragraph highlighting a strength of VCAT/and the corresponding weakness of the courts to that. Next paragraph would be a strength of the courts/weakness of VCAT and so forth. For example, using VCAT is much cheaper than going to court as there are no court costs and legal representation is discouraged. The only fee is applying to VCAT and that is nominal. Whereas, on the other hand, going to court can be an expensive process with court costs and fees for legal representation and advice. Furthermore, the cost for a jury can be significant and there are no guarantees of winning the case. That’s just my approach to the question. There are alternative methods in which to answer the question, just try to keep your structure simple and fluent.

Totally agree. Just two things to add: many teachers don't give you any marks for opinion (even though you need to include it) so just don't bank on getting anything for that part; and I always recommend having more points than the number of marks for 'evaluate-type' questions, so you have back-up if the examiner doesn't like one or two.

Really good advice!

[meganrobyn]

 

[georgiee]

I'm having trouble coming up with other strong evaluations between VCAT and the courts that don't involve informality and cost factor. For a 10 mark question you would probably have to state one or two more. Megan, I was wondering if you would be able to do tutoring?