Online Dispute Resolution for Small Civil Claims in Victoria: A New Paradigm in Civil Justice

This study examined performance audit and public sector budgetary efficiency in southwest Nigeria. Specifically, the study examined the effect of total quality management (TQM) on budgetary efficiency in Southwest Nigeria, Public service value (PSV) on budgetary efficiency in Southwest Nigeria and Government accountability system (GAS) on budgetary efficiency in Southwest Nigeria. Primary method of data collection was employed, through structured questionnaire and it was sourced from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry Rural Development, Ministry Health, Ministry Work and Infrastructure in selected Southwest States in Nigeria, which are, Lagos, Oyo and Ogun. Data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive analyses conducted in the study include frequency table, and pie chart while inferential analyses conducted in the study include linear regression and ANOVA analysis. F.test used to test the overall significance of the regression model while the coefficient of determinant r2, was used to determine how much variation the dependent variable was explained by the independent variable. Result revealed that coefficient of determination (r2) of total quality management, public sector value and government accountability system were 0.730, 0.654 and 0.433 which implies that about 73%, 65.4% and 43.3% variation in budgetary efficiency of the selected states can be explained by total quality management, public sector value, government accountability system in individual States. The study found out that total quality management (TQM), public service value (PSV) and government accountability system (GAS) indicated positive and significant effect on budgetary efficiency in southwest Nigeria, (.854, p .000 < 0.05), (809, p 0.003 < 0.05) and (.658, p .002 < 0.05) respectively. The overall regression model of (Total quality management, Public sector value and Government accountability system in the selected States) are significant in terms as F calculated (256.641, 83.084 and 61.846) are greater than F critical (3.89) respectively. The study concluded that total quality management, public service value and government accountability system have significant effects on public sector budgetary efficiency in Southwest Nigeria, and positively related.

Globalization has increased the number and complexity of business disputes, including small-value disputes often faced by business actors, especially in the MSME and e-commerce sectors. The Small Claim Court (SCC) mechanism in Indonesia offers fast and cheap dispute resolution but has not been able to address the need for confidentiality. On the other hand, arbitration has the advantage of confidentiality and legal certainty, but the cost and duration of settlement are still the main obstacles for small nominal claims. A comparative study between the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) and the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) shows that SIAC has adopted a more adaptive, efficient, and affordable Online Small Claim Arbitration (OSCA) mechanism. At the same time, BANI does not yet have specific regulations related to online arbitration for small claims. This research uses an empirical normative method to examine the effectiveness of OSCA as an alternative to small-value business dispute resolution in Indonesia. The results confirm the need for regulatory updates and the development of specialized online arbitration mechanisms for small claims to provide efficient, confidential, and affordable solutions for businesses in Indonesia

Ensuring Only Good Claims Come in Small Packages: A Response to Scholarly Concerns About a Proposed Small Copyright Claims Tribunal

The consumer field is widespread and often encompasses different legal fields on a single market, especially when it comes to the field of consumer protection. In fact, the consumer mostly remains a weaker party in resolving consumer disputes, especially in administrative proceedings. Traditional court proceedings do not always offer the most cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes, because the damage with legal costs is disproportionate, especially in Small Claims (20 EUR). In theory, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: ADR) is considered more flexible, faster and cheaper for disputes between consumers and businesses. Insofar, Consumer ADR (hereinafter: CADR) is seen as a useful tool that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of disputants, while preserving confidentiality, increasing consumer satisfaction, equality and grater trust. While CADR is praised in theory as an added value, in practice it still remains unrecognizable and therefore is seen as an ineffective formalism in some EU countries. It seems that consumers and businesses lack awareness of the CADR schemes and their benefits, which have effects on the efficient use of CADR in different public and private institutions. The focus of this paper is on the field of Public Administrative Law, which, through different approaches of scientific analysis, combines the main administrative aspects of CADR systems in the EU. Special attention is given to different administrative barriers in the development of various CADR schemes, which cause the formation of administrative dilemmas in some Member states. The new EU legal regulation on Consumer ADR, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and EU Administrative law have set flexible rules and principles that would assure the quality of dispute resolution between EU entities with private or public interests. Similarities in proposed principles would lead us closer towards a common European Administrative Space. However, so far such EU initiatives have left many questions unanswered regarding the supervision and financing of CADR schemes, as well as the administrative issues about the purely internal harmonization of “administrative” CADR practices in Member States. An example of the substantial administrative dilemmas in CADR practices, mostly in the field of universal services, can be recognized in existing CADR systems in selected EU countries, e.g. Slovenia and Croatia. POINTS FOR PRACTICIONERS: Special attention is paid to the interplay between the CADR and public administration in the EU, which introduces us to various definitions of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings. The theoretical view shows that the parties in consumer dispute resolution produce various legal relationships (C2B/G or G/B2C, B2B or G2B) of different legal natures (public or private interests), whether under administrative or civil law. Through comparative analysis of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings among selected EU countries, divergences are shown in the legal framework of CADR procedures, existing CADR schemes and measuring efficiency tools for CADR procedures, which causes key administrative dilemmas in the main sectors of universal services. Despite divergences, some similarities appear between new principles of proposed new EU regulation, which could lead us closer to a common European Administration law. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis of existing CADR cases in selected Member states indicates an inefficient use of these pledged mechanisms. The given guidelines and improvements with one coherent CADR model contribute to the achievement and pursuit of the set goals towards an efficient European Administrative space.

Purpose– The purpose of this research is to identify and analyze the core values of the Peruvian public sector in the particular context of recent public management reforms.Design/methodology/approach– After distinguishing between traditional private and public sector values, the paper compared the presence of each of these types of values in two very different sources of data: input from employees' values survey and formal values statements of Peruvian public sector organizations. The analysis includes both a comparison of the presence of traditional public and private sector values in the two sources of data and the identification of the cultural profile of the public sector of Peru using the tri-axial model.Findings– The findings indicate a large gap between values at the theoretical level and values at the practical level. While values statements of public organizations in Peru clearly reflect traditional public sector values, in practice, public sector employees appear to follow a mixture of public and private sector values. Strengthening this conclusion is the finding that the cultural tri-axial profile of the sector is purely economic-pragmatic, which suggests that ethical and emotional values are positioned lower on the values hierarchy.Originality/value– This paper provides the first evidence of two important cultural phenomena in the Peruvian public sector: a broad adoption of private sector values and a gap between the values that are proposed as ethical guidelines (ideal) and the values that are followed in practice (real). The combination of these two phenomena suggests a potential risk to the ethical functioning of the public administration. This risk is especially significant in a developing country like Peru, where many of its poor citizens depend on government support. The paper discusses both the research and practical implications of this study.

The conception of simple, informal, lawyerless courts where ordinary people can settle their affairs amicably without expense, delay, technicality, or contentiousness has fascinated Americans since colonial times. This theme can be seen running through the movements to codify the law, simplify legal procedure, open the practice of law to Everyman, create conciliation courts; the creation of the small claims courts and administrative tribunals; and attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to divert small matters out of the courts altogether and into Neighborhood Justice Centers and other informal dispute resolution mechanisms.The long and complex history of reform has been characterized by cyclical shifts in emphasis between two principal modes of characterizing small claims. One mode characterizes small claims as petty private quarrels and has led to attempts to supply justice by aiding fair outcomes between the particular parties. Since no broader social impact of the dispute is seen, the most efficient possible individual level response is viewed as appropriate. The other mode perceives small claims as particular instances of important systematic injustices between social groups or classes and has led to attempts to use small claims processing as the forum for making important policy. Perceiving broad social impact of the resolution of small claims, one will see a mobilization of aggregate resources to deal with them as important social problems as appropriate.As a result, entire classes of cases and issues may be skimmed off and dealt with collectively as important social-legal problems. When this occurs the perception of the small claims that remain shifts to the other mode, and they are viewed as less important residual petty quarrels meriting less attention and resources. This periodic skimming off of certain claims and waning of collective attention to the remaining mass of claims has introduced a cyclical element into the development of small claims courts (and other legal reforms). Thus the mode of preceiving small claims itself conditions the mode of legal response which is advocated.

The conception of simple, informal, lawyerless courts where ordinary people can settle their affairs amicably without expense, delay, technicality, or contentiousness has fascinated Americans since colonial times. This theme can be seen running through the movements to codify the law, simplify legal procedure, open the practice of law to Everyman, create conciliation courts; the creation of the small claims courts and administrative tribunals; and attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to divert small matters out of the courts altogether and into Neighborhood Justice Centers and other informal dispute resolution mechanisms.The long and complex history of reform has been characterized by cyclical shifts in emphasis between two principal modes of characterizing small claims. One mode characterizes small claims as petty private quarrels and has led to attempts to supply justice by aiding fair outcomes between the particular parties. Since no broader social impact of the dispute is seen, the most efficient possible individual level response is viewed as appropriate. The other mode perceives small claims as particular instances of important systematic injustices between social groups or classes and has led to attempts to use small claims processing as the forum for making important policy. Perceiving broad social impact of the resolution of small claims, one will see a mobilization of aggregate resources to deal with them as important social problems as appropriate.As a result, entire classes of cases and issues may be skimmed off and dealt with collectively as important social-legal problems. When this occurs the perception of the small claims that remain shifts to the other mode, and they are viewed as less important residual petty quarrels meriting less attention and resources. This periodic skimming off of certain claims and waning of collective attention to the remaining mass of claims has introduced a cyclical element into the development of small claims courts (and other legal reforms). Thus the mode of preceiving small claims itself conditions the mode of legal response which is advocated.

The implementation of Small Claims court mechanism according to Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 2/2015 concerning Procedures for Small-Claims Court Resolution recently granted a breakthrough in the civil justice system particularly in Indonesia. It was reached by the Supreme Court in order to reduce the court burden against cases with disputes below IDR 200 million rupiah. The disputes resolution by Small Claims court mechanism is done by a single judge assisted with registrar and must completed within 25 working days, the final decision is binding, thus unable to ask for appeal or judicial review. This article tries to comprehend dispute resolution through Small Claims mechanism in several state courts, such as Medan district Court, Palu, and the Jember. The study, also aims to comprehend the comparison of Small Claims mechanism in Indonesia and small claims in the Netherlands and UK in business disputes resolution. The study employs a normative juridical method. Based on the studies, the implementation through Small Claims court mechanism in Indonesia has been carried out in accordance with the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2/2015. Comparison on business dispute resolution using Small Claims court mechanism in Indonesia and in Netherlands and UK proof that the proof mechanisms whether in Indonesia, Netherlands and United Kingdom relatively simple. Legal remedies for Small Claims decision in Indonesia and the verdict in the Netherlands and in England are limited. The distinction is that the case number in Indonesia is higher than the number in the Netherlands and England.

Historical Background The European Union has adopted a number of regulations in the area of civil justice with the aim of simplifying cross-border litigation, reducing its costs, and providing legislative tools that will facilitate access to justice for businesses and consumers. The regulatory and procedural diversity among the national systems can lead to an ‘enforcement deficit’ within the internal market. In cross-border litigation, the diversity of civil procedure rules may result in significantly lengthier proceedings, disproportionate costs of court actions, and cumbersome procedures. In addition, it may also require the employment of legal practitioners in more than one jurisdiction. The situation is even more challenging for creditors when cross-border cases face more procedural requirements, while purely domestic claims benefit from rapid recovery instruments. Consumers and small- and medium-sized businesses are particularly sensitive to these hurdles related to crossborder litigation. This can easily dissuade them from taking action, thus limiting their access to justice, especially for uncontested and small value claims. The Conclusions of the Tampere European Council emphasised the need for improved access to justice, mutual recognition of judicial decisions, and greater convergence in civil law. For this purpose, the adoption of new procedural legislation for cross-border cases, including for uncontested and small value claims, was considered. The Council Draft Programme for Mutual Recognition underlined the priority of abolishing the exequatur for uncontested claims in order to promote the rapid recovery of outstanding payments and to simplify and speed up cross-border litigation in small claims, especially for consumers. The 2002 Green Paper argued that there is a need for EU procedures concerning these type of claims, pointing to the excessive costs, delays, and complexity of domestic procedures when the claims are not disputed as to their merits or are of small value. Further, as well as the available national solutions, the Paper investigated the possible features and procedural models that would be suitable for the new procedures. This formed the basis for the European Commission proposal for the adoption of two regulations in 2004 and 2005. The Regulations seek to address some of the bottlenecks in cross-border litigation (e.g. complexity, costs, lengthy proceedings, the need for legal representation in various systems, and enforcement) in order to create a level playing field in this area of law and to enhance effective enforcement.

In post-Soviet countries, the courts are not always effective in resolving consumer disputes. I compare the models of organizing the work of financial ombudsmen in Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as plans for its implementation in Kyrgyzstan and Belarus. Models of compulsory mediation in a number of European jurisdictions are also analyzed. In some countries there is a tendency towards an increase in the influence of the regulator on the work of financial ombudsmen. The reform of the Russian financial ombudsman is the first attempt at introducing a new compulsory ombudsman model for financial markets. It will be a mandatory stage initiation of a lawsuit in a civil court. The new Russian model is unique, differing both from the models established in the countries of the European Union (centralized, decentralized, professional association), as well as models implemented in other post-Soviet countries. The Russian financial ombudsman model is essentially a combination of Italian compulsory mediation on the basis of coercion before the dispute is considered by the court, and the English financial ombudsman on the basis of a vertical system headed by a sole chairman who is de facto appointed by the financial services regulator, while membership in this system of financial institutions that provide regulated services is generally mandatory. Whether the compulsory financial ombudsman under the Central Bank ‘umbrella’ will manifest itself positively or negatively will determine the possibility of extending this scheme to other categories of consumer disputes in the financial markets and such as housing construction and repair, utilities, and telecommunications with many small and medium consumer claims. Furthermore, since a number of post-Soviet countries continue to rely on the Russian experience, in such countries there may be an expansion of mandatory ombudsmen under the umbrella of regulators as well.

This paper investigates the most recent developments in completely online small claims processes as a response to the extreme delays in delivering justice by courts. This study argues that adopting a tiered online dispute resolution (ODR) system design can increase access to justice for individuals by simplifying the processes; reducing excessive procedural length and costs; also expanding accessibility to dispute resolution bodies. The present research also proposes that the COVID-19 pandemic has widely opened a bundle of opportunities for complete digitalisation of small claims procedures at the EU and Member State levels. Nevertheless, it deems necessary to closely monitor the function of these systems to ensure that the digitalised small claims procedures meet the standards of procedural fairness and efficiency of justice, in particular concerning self-represented litigants. Thus, the overall structure of this paper takes the form of four sections. The first part lays out the evolution of ODR in relation to small claims and analysing a tiered ODR system design for these cases. Section II gives an overview of the most prominent operating online small claims processes from a global perspective in the United Kingdom, Canada, China, and the United States. The third section is concerned with the status of online small claims processes and the taken measures at EU and Member States level. The final part provides a discussion on the lessons learnt, the opportunities, and the risks in full digitalisation of small claims processes.

The way that small claims are dealt with has prompted enormous interest in many jurisdictions, yet the subject has been neglected by researchers in this country. We should not doubt the importance of these procedures, however. It is increasingly seen as a convenient expedient in tackling the crisis in civil justice, and with a massive increase in the small claims limit from £1,000 to £3,000 in January 1996, small claims have suddenly become big judicial business. This book (based on research conducted over a two-year period and funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Office of Fair Trading and the Economic and Social Research Council) presents the most extensive empirical research analysis of small claims procedures ever undertaken in this country. The theoretical and practical implications of moves to expand the scope of 'Do-it-yourself' justice are explored. The author had privileged access to the district court judges who conduct claim hearings, and the book is the first to include lengthy extracts from tape recorded interviews with them. It also includes discussion of interviews with litigants, including many who struggled to gain payment of court judgments.

There have been some remarkable developments of late in the way that civil actions are dealt with in county courts in England and Wales. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that a silent revolution has taken place in the civil courts over the past twenty years in which the small claims regime has been greatly expanded. In the process, the face of civil justice administration has been radically changed. The proportion of civil actions handled by the county courts as small claims has increased inexorably in the past twenty-five years, and we have reached the position where the vast majority of defended actions are now being dealt with under the small claims procedure. The massive and un precedented rise in the small claims limit from £1,000 to £3,000 in January 1996, following the Lord Chancellor’s acceptance of the recommendation to this effect by Lord Woolf in his inquiry into the civil justice system, seems certain to accelerate this trend.

Some jurists believe that the judicial process is not adequate for these lawsuits when they are transnational, but in fact, neither is it when they are national. It is true that a transnational claim is challenging in terms of applicable law, the search for national lawyers, the search of evidence and even the translations. But actually all inconveniences are based upon a very old mentality linked with the also very old ‘de minimis non curat praetor’. Whoever thinks that dealing with transnational small claims is not really feasible, does not see how to deal with them adequately in domestic law either. These authors also think that the resolution of small claims should be transferred to mediation –often useless–, to consumer arbitration, whose institutional development as parallel to state justice is extremely complicated, or even to collective redress, although in the vast majority of cases there is not really a group of stakeholders that can be managed together. Furthermore, organizing this kind of collective redress is very difficult. It’s maybe necessary to remember that class-actions in the US almost never reach the trial phase.

In 2001, Indonesia established the Consumer Dispute Resolution Body (CDRB) based on the instruction of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in 1999 to provide consumers protection in exercising their rights and to settle disputes quickly, simply, affordably, and professionally. Compared to the systems established by several countries that submit common law systems in which dispute-solving cases are terminated by the special courts called Small Claims Courts or Small Claims Tribunals, CDRB construction in Indonesia was quite vague. Although it uses arbitration terminology, the CDRB lacks an arbitration mechanism because, in practice, the body examines consumer disputes, working formally as a court. The root of this problem arose from the inconsistent regulation in the CPA. This article aims to review the CDRB construction problem compared to systems in other countries, to find recommendations for CPA amendments and discuss the future prospects. This study suggests two solutions: The first is the strict separation of litigation and non-litigation dispute resolution. The second is the formation of both online litigation and non-litigation systems. With these systems, the CDRB becomes a substitute institution, meaning that this body is the only system for small claim resolution for disputing parties.