practice 5 markers: Flashcards
(13 cards)
what are 3 differences between the civil court system and tribunal courts? (5 marks)
One difference is - hear the 7 issues - war, pension, armed forces, tax, property, health education and social care, social entitlement, immigration, immigration and asylum. General regulation
Another difference is: tribunals are more accessible, cheaper, often represent themselves, have to apply for N1
Another difference is tribunals are much quicker, they are usually done within a day, whereas civil courts are a lengthy process
Outline two advantages of tribunals (5 marks)
- they are cheaper: most encouraged to represent themselves, also rare that an order for costs will be made if they lose, more accessible as a result.
- another advantage is they have non lawyer expertise, gives them more understanding and rounded
- quick, over in one day, whereas civil courts are lengthy
Outline two disadvantages of tribunal courts (5 marks)
Lack of funding – no legal aid, one may be at a disadvantage i.e. employment
More formal than ADR – can still be confusing for individuals who represent themselves and ADR may be more suitable
Delay in getting a hearing - very overused
Explain two scenarios in which tribunals could be used (5 marks)
- immigration and asylum
- employment laws (most common)
what are two advantages of using ADR instead of a courtroom?
encouraged through the Woolf reforms:
Court can be costly i.e. money and time.
Traumatic for people, court may not lead to satisfactory outcomes for either party, no privacy in court proceedings
What is negotiation (ADR) and explain two benefits of using it instead of a courtroom?
settle the dispute directly with just the two parties trying to come to an agreement. Can have a solicitor to act on behalf (cost will be increasing the longer the negotiations continue)
Deal with each other directly – benefit both
Can be cheap and quick
Can represent themselves
two disadvantages of using negotiations in place of the court room?
May settle for something lower
No guaranteed outcome – could be a waste of time and legal expenses
No legal precedent – may lead to an unfair, random outcome, it is not binding or rely on past decisions
What is mediation and two advantages of using it in the courtroom?
Mediation = neutral party mediatpr helps the two parties come to a solution, not acting on behalf of one party but both. Assess how much agreement there is already and carry offers without being biased. Only viable if there is some hope that they can reach an outcome amicably. must be used in family
Two parties are still in complete control and can decide how they wibt the process to take place. Everyone wins in mediation and avoids courtroom conflict
Centre for effective dispute resolution – 10000 issues were solved annually, 2.8 billion pounds in management time, relationships, productivity and legal fees.
86% success rate
advantages:
Private and confidential
Quick
Cost effective
Accessible
Parties can maintain a relationship
80% of cases are settled using mediation
Two disadvantages of using mediation:
May end up going to court anyway
Compulsory – halfhearted commitment decreasing the changes of success
Only viable if there is some hope that they can reach an outcome amicably. must be used in family
what are two benefits of using conciliation in ADR?
A third party (conciliator) will suggest an outcome to settle the dispute, done through ACAS (Advisory, conciliation and arbitration services) often used in industrial disputes. If parties refuse an offer of litigation without good reason then even if they win the case, the judge can refuse to award some of their legal costs. Will frown upon it. Have to be reviewed and taken notice of.
= cheaper than court
= conciliator plays an active role
= private and confidential
= identifies and clarifies the dispute
what are two disadvantages of using conciliation instead of the courtroom?
Relies on the skills of the conciliator
May go to court anyway
what is arbitration and what are two advantages of using it as a form of ADR?
Adjudication (judgement) of a dispute by one or more specially appointed experts or lawyers (like a mini court case)
Hearing or mostly paper arbitration – submitting your evidence in paper and then the arbitrator comes to a decision
Belong to the chartered institute of arbitrators.
BINDING – NOT OPTIONAL
Decision = award
Scott v Avery clause usually included - arbitration act 1996
discretion over who the arbitrator is, parties get to decide the details of the hearing e.g. date, venue, witnesses
private – no publicity
award is binding
expert in the field
two disadvantages of using arbitration as ADR?
public funding is not available (one party may have an advantage)
-appeals are highly restricted
-not always a legal professional in the rule
