Cost-effective Dispute Resolution Research Articles

KONSEP MEKANISME PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA MELALUI SMALL CLAIM COURT SUATU STUDI PERBANDINGAN DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA DI INDONESIA

The demand of society seeking justice is for simple, speedy, and cost-effective dispute resolution. This is the foundation for the establishment of the principle of justice in Indonesia in accordance with Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning the Judicial Power, namely the principles of simple, speedy, and cost-effective justice. This is due to the fact that dispute resolution through litigation often fails to satisfy the parties involved due to its relatively lengthy process, complexity, and high costs. Meanwhile, dispute resolution outside the court (non-litigation) lacks executive power because it is solely contractual. The mechanism for resolving disputes through the Small Claims Court was initially known and practiced in countries with a common law system, eventually adopted by countries with a civil law system. In Indonesia, it was translated and implemented through the examination of simple lawsuits in accordance with the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Filing Simple Lawsuits, as amended and perfected by the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2019 concerning Amendments to the Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Filing Simple Lawsuits.

Using Dispute Resolution Clause Efficiently in Managing Commercial Contract Cases

Nowadays, parties generally prefer more efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanisms in resolving commercial disputes. Thus, the shift from adversarial litigation to non-adversarial types of dispute resolution. The main objective of this article is to study the use of a dispute resolution clause in contracts in regulating the way of resolving commercial disputes. The specific objectives of this study are to identify the main content of a dispute resolution clause and to analyze the effects of invoking a dispute resolution clause at the pre-litigation and the initial litigation stages. This study is grounded in doctrinal legal research. The researcher obtained primary and secondary sources via the library and later analyzed them using critical and analytical approaches. This study mainly finds that efficient use of a well-drafted dispute resolution clause may produce intended results with time-saving and effort at the pre-litigation and early litigation stages. This study is significant for promoting non-adversarial dispute resolution mechanisms in resolving issues in commercial and non-commercial contracts via a dispute resolution clause and a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause.

Apologies and Good Lawyering

In everyday life, apologies are common. For example, if one shopper bumps into another in a crowded grocery store, apologies abound. Or if a child on the playground accidentally crashes into another child, the crashing child will apologize. If the crashing child does not apologize, a teacher, playground monitor, or parent will instruct the child to apologize, because apologizing for hurting someone is the 'right' thing to do. This apology norm largely disappears if the crashing child grows up and becomes a lawyer, however. Despite empirical research showing that apologies have value in settlement, facilitate cost-effective dispute resolution, and are important to injured parties, it appears that lawyers do not regularly either suggest that a client ask for or suggest that a client offer an apology as part of a conflict resolution. Why does the instinct to facilitate dispute resolution with a sincere apology disappear when students enter law school or when law students become lawyers? Some suggest that lawyers – and consequently the clients they advise – disavow apologies as a matter of defense because apologies are viewed as costly admissions of liability. Others suggest that attorneys for injured parties have no obvious incentives to suggest apologies since quick dispute resolution results in smaller legal fees. Still others suggest that those who become lawyers tend to be logical and analytical, and tend to eschew conduct viewed as purely emotive, such as apologizing. This paper shows that a good lawyer must recognize the value of apologies in conflict resolution, litigation, and settlement, and this paper provides guidance for offering apologies.

A New Way to Settle Old Disputes: Mediation and Healthcare

The President: Well, once again good evening. Tonight we are venturing into the realms of dispute resolution by mediation and our speaker is Tony Allen, a Director of CEDR since 2001. Now, in my ignorance, I thought that CEDR stood for Comite Europeen de Droit Rural, in other words the European Council for Agricultural Law, but I now know that the cognoscenti refer to it as the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, which is an independent non-profit organisation whose mission is to encourage and develop mediation and other cost-effective dispute resolution and preventive techniques in commercial and public sector disputes. Now, Tony qualified as a solicitor in 1969 and practised primarily in the fields of personal injury and insurance (in which he acted both for claimants and defendants), clinical negligence, childcare, criminal and civil advocacy and general litigation, which I think you will agree with me is not exactly a narrow area. Now Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession of 2001/2002 said this: “He is universally considered to be clearly the best mediator in the UK for clinical negligence and personal injury”, and in previous editions it said “his humorous and affable style” counted for a lot in cases with a high emotional content. So before calling on him to address us on A New Way to Settle Old Disputes I would remind you please to ensure that your mobile telephones are either set to silent or turned off altogether. Tony has agreed to take questions after his talk, so without further ado, Tony, please do go ahead. Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr President. Good evening everyone.

Cost-Effective Strategies for Arbitration

Arbitration is evolving from a swift, cost-effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism to a slow, laborious process akin to litigation in terms of procedure and costs without the safeguards of litigation. By use of several unique techniques to reduce the time and costs, the original virtues of arbitration can be restored, while maintaining the integrity of the process and its inherent procedural fairness. This article details several suggestions on how, with some forethought and planning, cost and time reductions can be enacted without sacrificing the main tenet of the arbitration process, namely, a fair, swift, and cost-effective dispute resolution process.

Obtaining Documents from Adverse Parties in International Arbitration

COURTS ALMOST invariably provide a party with an effective mechanism for obtaining key relevant documents from the other party. The systems and scope in the civil and common law courts are different, but there is no real doubt that the right is enforceable. The same is not yet true for international arbitration, where there are real doubts as to enforceability of cross-border documentary orders. The issue is whether that has to be the case in situations where the documents are key to the arbitration proceedings. There are two basic grounds for obtaining documents from an adverse party in international arbitration. First, a party may have a contractual or substantive right to the documents. A significant element of many international contracts is the exchange of information between the parties. Parties negotiate with care the nature of the documents that they require and that they are willing to produce under contracts. That information is relevant for the performance of the contract and for remedies if the contract is breached. Second, in arbitration proceedings, as with litigation in general, a party has under certain circumstances a procedural right to obtain documents from the other side. The documents may be highly relevant to the proceedings and therefore, in the interests of justice, subject to disclosure. This right may be more limited than the contractual right, but it is just as important as it relates to the issues in dispute. In using these two grounds, counsel and the tribunal have to weigh the importance of the documents sought, the enforceability of the rights and the timing of the requests in light of the overall goal of cost-effective dispute resolution. Where documents are important, the use of these substantive and procedural grounds could and should be improved in international arbitration. However, prior to discussing how, we …

Rights disputes procedures in Canada and New Zealand

This paper examines the resolution of rights disputes in Canada and New Zealand. It begins with an overview of the statutory distinction between interest and rights disputes and traces the development of rights disputes procedures in both countries. This is followed by a comparison of the characteristics of rights disputes procedures in each country, e.g., scope and third-party involvement. The final section considers the performance of disputes procedures, including whether they act as a strike substitute and provide timely and cost effective dispute resolution. The implications of these findings for employment justice also are considered.