ADR

[andy456]

What are the disadvantages of ADR?

I have:
-not suitable for all disputes
-not suitable when one party is manipulative
-not binding
-expensive to appeal


Are there any others anyone can think of. I have a pretty crappy textbook so I dont have any others.
Thanks

[Spreadbury]

one party may compromise too much instead of being able to accept their full legal entitlements and there is limited public scrutiny as ADR settlements are often confidential

[andy456]

one party may compromise too much instead of being able to accept their full legal entitlements

Could you put this on under the manipulative one?

there is limited public scrutiny as ADR settlements are often confidential

What do you mean by limited public scrutiny. As in if the courts make an unjust decision there is a public outcry and parliament is likely to create and Act to stop it from happening again. And this cannot happen in ADR's because they are behind closed doors.

[Spreadbury]

one party may compromise too much instead of being able to accept their full legal entitlements

Could you put this on under the manipulative one?

you could, but it's not really the same. when using an ADR method you have to compromise to create a win-win solution (unless you use arbitration) and to create that win-win solution you will have to forfeit some entitlements; you may have to accept less money than you're looking for so that the other person will agree to settle the dispute without you having to take it to court. it's not about manipulation but that ADR doesn't force anyone to really do anything. as the outcome is not binding and ADR is voluntary it is up to the parties to reach an agreement. if one party is manipulative that may affect it, they may be sweet talked or swindled out of what they deserve. here's how I have it in my notes:

it is argued that people who use ADR methods are those who cannot afford to take a case to court. ADR requires a compromise so that an agreement between the parties can be reached. Even if the complainant has a legitimate legal claim, they may have to accept a compromise (a lesser bargain that also suits the other party) instead of their full legal entitlements unless they are willing to pursue the matter into a court hearing

[Yitzi_K]

Since ADR is usually without legal represenation, if one party has better negotiating skills or a better command of English they are at a significant advantage in the dispute resolution.

[spaciiey]

sometimes it also isn't taken seriously enough. sometimes it still can take forever, especially if the other party doesnt turn up cause he/she doesnt take it seriously. sometimes you dont end up reaching a decision. by the way, arbitration IS binding -- just keep that in mind.

[Abdi]

Disadvantages of ADR
#There is no guaranteed resolution. With the exception of arbitration, alternative dispute resolution processes do not always lead to a resolution. That means it is possible that you could invest the time and money in trying to resolve the dispute out-of-court and still end up having to go to court.

#Arbitration decisions are final. With few exceptions, the decision of a neutral arbitrator cannot be appealed. Decisions of a court, on the other hand, usually can be appealed to a higher court.

 #Participation could be perceived as weakness. While the option of making the proceeding confidential addresses some of this concern, some parties still want to go to court “just on principle.”