Arbitration is a process used by the agreement of the parties to resolve disputes. In arbitrations, disputes are resolved, with binding effect, by a person or persons acting in a judicial manner in private, rather than by a court of law that would have jurisdiction but for the agreement of the parties to exclude it. Where as Tribunals make an award rather than give a judgment. They are not absolutely bound by previous decisions of the tribunal, although they may look at previous cases for assistance in making their decisions. They are however bound by decisions of courts.
Arbitration is the first and oldest of alternative dispute procedures. This method of ADR is common here commerce is concerned as parties tend to try to avoid going to court despite well-developed contract law. This is because most businesses want to establish long-term relationships with other business people, so they do not want to jeopardise their relationships by going to law. They often use The Scott-Avery clause; named after the case Scott v Avery (1865)
The parties in question agree to have their dispute reviewed and refer the problem to a 3rd party (independent arbitrator) for a resolution rather than going to court. The arbitrator does this by making an “award” and giving the reasons for doing so. Neither party may then start a court action in relation to the same dispute. The courts will not interfere with the decision unless the arbitrator acted improperly or unless fresh evidence is introduced.
The Essay on Compare and contrast the arbitration laws of two countries
The significant increase in the role of international trade in the economic development of nations over the last few decades has been accompanied by a considerable increase in the number of commercial disputes as well. Today rapid globalization of the economy and the resulting increase in competition has led to an increase in commercial disputes. At the same time, however, the rate of industrial ...
Arbitration allows parties to choose their own judges with each party usually nominating one arbitrator who between them choose a third. Parties can choose a neutral venue for the hearing and a neutral language if necessary.
Although arbitration takes place under strict rules the process and basis for decision are not as rigidly defined as in court. For example, rules of evidence are not as strict, and parties can usually have a say in how they want the hearing to be conducted.
Once the decision is made there is very limited right of appeal to this decision. The only right to appeal against an arbitrator’s decision, is through the High Court on a count of “serious irregularity”, such as a violation of natural justice, the excess of jurisdiction, or a visible error of law. An arbitrator has discretion not to award costs, but usually awards reasonable costs to the winning party.
Arbitration deals with cases regarding employment. The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) was created by the Employment Protection Act 1975 to help in trade disputes and to improve industrial relations. They provide free independent and impartial arbitration to employers and employees and is often the preferred method of resolution. For example it is simpler and quicker to use the ACAS arbitration service than to apply to an Employment Tribunal, in unfair dismissal cases. The benefits of arbitration include its confidentiality, flexibility, speed and the expertise of many arbitrators. It is usually, but not always, cheaper than court.
There are two types of Tribunals domestic and administrative. Domestic tribunals are used within professions to determine questions relating to the professional conduct of their members and are usually of a disciplinary nature. The Bar Council has such a tribunal as does the Law Society being staffed by senior members of the profession and having powers to fine, suspend or disbar a member for misconduct. Administrative have a more general jurisdiction, although each such tribunal is set up individually by the legislation creating the rights and duties for which the tribunal has responsibility. Each tribunal is headed by a legally qualified chairperson who sits with two independent members, one representing the respective positions of each side of the dispute (in an employment tribunal the legal chair will sit with an employer and a trade unionist).
The Research paper on Dispute Resolution Processes Mediation Parties Decision
Dispute Resolution Processes Wherever there is a human-interaction, conflict is virtually unpreventable. For-instance, some conflict may well erupt a dispute in any structure of relationships, and other perhaps resulting in extremely compound international confrontation and hostility. It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem (G. K. Chesterton). Consequently, ...
On the other hand, administrative tribunals resolve disputes such as those between a private citizen and a central government department, such as claims to social security benefits. They also cover disputes which require the application of specialised knowledge or expertise, such as the assessment of compensation following the compulsory purchase of land; and other disputes which by their nature or quantity are considered unsuitable for the ordinary courts, such as fixing a fair rent for premises or immigration appeals.
Tribunals mainly deal with disputes regarding neighbours and unemployment; they also don’t follow judicial precedent. Parties each put their case forward and are then cross examined etc. Self representation is allowed and the final verdict is made by a panel of 3 which is bound by. There is limited right of appeal as not all tribunals have the right e.g. employment tribunals.
They are governed by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. The Council on Tribunals keeps under review the constitution and working of a large number of tribunals; and they are controlled by the courts, usually through an appeal route, and tribunals are obliged to observe the principles of natural justice and are subject to the supervision of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.
In conclusion both methods of alternative dispute resolution are aimed at the relief of congestion in the ordinary courts of law. They are beneficial as they give parties choice and is often and cheaper and faster way of resolving disputes.
