Explain the methods of alternative dispute resolution and the role of tribunals, and evaluate their advantages over court proceedings.

What this dot point is asking

You must explain the main ADR methods, the role of tribunals, and evaluate their advantages and limits compared with going to court.

Methods of alternative dispute resolution

ADR covers several methods, which differ in how much control a third party has over the outcome.

• Negotiation is direct discussion between the parties, with or without lawyers, to reach an agreement. No third party decides anything.
• Mediation uses a neutral mediator who helps the parties communicate and find their own solution. The mediator does not decide the outcome.
• Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the conciliator is more active and may suggest possible solutions, often using expertise in the subject area.
• Arbitration involves an arbitrator who hears both sides and makes a decision, called an award, which can be legally binding on the parties.

The role of tribunals

Tribunals are bodies that resolve particular types of disputes outside the ordinary court system. In South Australia the main one is the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), created by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA). SACAT handles matters such as tenancy disputes, guardianship, and the review of government decisions.

Advantages over court proceedings

ADR and tribunals offer real benefits, which is why they have been built into the justice system.

• Lower cost, because there is often no need for extended legal representation or a full trial.
• Speed, because matters are resolved more quickly than the court backlog allows.
• Less formality, which makes the process less intimidating and more accessible.
• Preserved relationships, because cooperative methods like mediation are less adversarial.
• Flexibility and privacy, because parties can shape creative outcomes confidentially.

These advantages directly improve access to justice, especially for people who cannot afford lengthy litigation.

Limits and when courts are better

ADR is not always appropriate. Courts remain better where a binding and enforceable judgment is needed, where there is a serious power imbalance between the parties, where a public ruling and precedent are important, or where serious criminal conduct is involved. A voluntary mediated agreement may also be hard to enforce if a party refuses to comply, unlike a court order.

Connection to the rest of the course

ADR and tribunals connect directly to access to justice and to the adversarial system, which courts have softened by encouraging settlement and mediation. They are central to the dispute resolution focus area and to evaluating whether justice is accessible.