my name's Fredricka is and garage A. I'm a barrister, an arbitrator practicing at hard with chambers, and today I'm going to speak to you on the topic. Why, 80 are so we're going to be speaking about first of all, giving you an introduction on then. Secondly, talking about the different types of 80 are going into the benefits on the current policy, and I hope at the end I'll be able to draw some conclusions as to why 80 up. So the first point that we gave to talk about is what is a TR? So 80 yards, a form of alternative dispute resolution, and there are many forms that can take place. The concept of 80 are off was first brought about in the United States, followed closely by Australia and then the United Kingdom and Europe as a way a direct response to the delay and costs associated with litigation in the courts. And there is no specific agreed definition of 80 are, however, it's normally understood to mean a new alternative to litigation for the resolution off a civil disputes on it normally requires to all parties that speed relates to civil legal rights and duties that it could potentially go to court for a resolution that instead of being resolved by a court process, it's resolved by some other form in agreement of the parties and that it involves, um offered 1/3 party who is neutral, objective on that's normally undertaken by lawyers or some other form of professional mutual party. As you can see from the figure here, there are three main forms that are illustrated there. That's negotiation, mediation and adjudication. There are also other forms that you can see below, which demonstrates all sorts of different variations incorporating the general three principles there. So things like early neutral evaluation, conciliation, project mediation, dispute review boards, med obs and many trials. Aziz Well, a sort of specific construction methods such as expert determination and construction adjudication. When we talk about the main methods, we split them normally into adjudicative and non adjudicative methods. So things that negotiation and mediation they are effectively forms of negotiation. Mediation also introduces 1/3 party neutral who facilitates the negotiation process processes such as the adjudication and arbitration, which is no mentioned in this figure. Adjudicative methods, which normally involve referring to disputes to 1/3 party on the parties, agreeing that they shall be bound by that agreement. Or that decision by the third party on adjudication has really boomed since the introduction in 1996 of the housing grants Construction on regeneration open brackets construction packed those brackets, which imposes an implied dispute resolution clause for adjudication in any construction agreements. So you can see there that different types off 80 are their definition, their time on their costs. And you see on the last column that litigation is also shown on. So you'll see, for example, that mediation tends to be the shortest of the 80. Our processes generally taking 1 to 2 days adjudication a bit longer, with some 30 days sometimes that can be extended to around six weeks. Arbitration can take even longer than litigation. In some jurisdictions, it has often become as complex as lengthy as litigation, and that has been one of its criticisms. But that very much depends on the jurisdiction upon which that applies. If we now turn to the benefits of a TR, this figure shows really the benefits and respective party's. So we have different factors, such as costs such as time peace of mind control, confidentiality and, of course, the flexibility to negotiate any agreed terms between the parties. And that's especially so for the 1st 2 on the non adjudicative forms of 80 are such as negotiation on mediation. As far as the current policy goes, we look at procedural rules and regal legal traditions and respective trial. It's etcetera. We see that there are two main factors. One is a supply or the number of resolved cases, and B. It is in respective that demand the number of incoming cases and this is all in the context of litigation. So in reality there are in many commercial sectors. Adjudicative methods of 80 are which are the norm. We talked about adjudication on the construction act Well. Construction is, of course, one of the obvious sectors upon which the use of adjudication or 80 are is very common. That also extends to shipping energy and insurance, which are all sectors in which arbitration clauses expressly disclaimed or substitute the rights or recourse to the courts and event of a dispute. 80 are is also widespread in certain jurisdictions in other areas, such as consumer disputes, unemployment speeds, especially in the United States. A case study of naturalistic should found that there were more than 500 million contracts of the mandatory arbitration provisions in respect of US consumers in Australians estimated that about 80 to 90% of civil cases on now disposed off pretrial in England and Wales. The CPR Civil procedure rules, introduced in 1999 placed 80 at the forefront of the modern legal system. Actively promoting 80 are with the ethos that litigation should be seen as a last not first resort to settle disputes, and this has been especially promoted by way of costs consequences. Now there has been in this next section we're going to look at comparative studies of the judicial systems, recognizing that the judicial and legal reforms are critical for the success of economic adjustment and development. On these studies that we're going to look at. However, on generally speaking studies around the world show that court performance and congestion of the judiciary. The studies remain quite rare, actually, and that is the result of that is that there is very little known about the trends in court performance around the world. On that MAWR information is needed to review and compare those trends amongst different countries. Even where those statistics are available, there is a large discrepancy between the legal systems around the world, which make it quite difficult to compare if we take an example off the calculation of the number of judges and jurisdiction. For example, it's quite complicated by the high use of lay Magistrates in the lower courts of England, Wales, on also the use off judicial ist distance. For example, in the courts of Germany on Germanic legal systems, these three reports which, as you can see, cover quite a lengthy period in time, do you give us some insight into the different legal systems and comparing the figures around the world. So if you start with the World Bank report, we can see in this figure that in respective cases filed ah ah, per judge eso we see that each job in Germany, for example, has an average off 175 cases filed. And if we go down, we look at places such a Singapore with 1280 to Brazil, with 1728 and the highest down the bottom there being chili with 5161 cases. If we now move on to the resolve the number of result cases, judge, then we see that Germany has a low number, but also that's in respect of unknown number of cases filed of 168 chili does in fact, resolve a high number of cases there 4809 and that is the highest in the World Bank report figures. So when we're talking about clearance rates, we see that actually, chili does pretty well. That resolves about 93% of cases. Ecuador does the worst, with 41% of cases and France being the highest on that table, with 110% of cases. In other words, not only does it resolve the number of cases files per year on average, but it also eats into a backlog by 10%. So if you look at now pending numbers of cases per judge and we see that Singapore has the best, the most efficient number with 58 again chili being the worst, with each judge having 8187 at cases pending closely, fathers will see their Ecuador with 7768 and moving on to the annual caseload per judge. When we see that Germany has a very reasonable case late with 271 we see France then with 341 moving further down on, we see the same countries at the bottom. There we see that Brazil is actually split up to Brazilian and some power. Just those two cities have an average of some 10,000 to shy off Ecuador then follows with 10,153 and chili at the bottom with 13,348 cases. So we therefore move onto the congestion rates. And, uh, we have mentioned earlier I think about the congestion rate, um hmm and that that is really in respect to the first figure of supply and demand. So of course, where there is much more demand than there is supply, then the congestion rate increases and we see a number of cases being resolved lagging behind the number of cases being filed, which means that differential grows and therefore the congestion rate increases over time. Telling now to a different reports on this is that the reports create carried out here in England and Wales in 2006 on it was undertaken by seed of the Center for Effective Dispute Resolution together with Barclays Bank and Louis Silken LLP firm of solicitors and they reported the following statistics Festival. The first conclusion was that a typical employment case when Lecter gated in the courts, he costs around the average of £277,000. Of that total court costs over 1/4 of the amount, or some £72,000 is spent on the management of time in tackling the dispute. Where these cases a mediated there normally resolved in the very early stages and costs around £9000 which is a vast saving of some £268,000. The typical cost of unemployment, the speed at various stages were ascertained in figures and each figure amounts to £1000. For example, where simply first puts in their complaints, the amount of time spent its six equivalent to £6000 fees of three and the total of £9000. And by the time we get to escalation of a complaint. Then we look at a time factor of six fees 15 giving the total off 21. And when we add that to the initial complaint period, then we get a cumulative 30. In other words, £30,000 by the time there's a response filed by three employer, we see a time factor of two fees of six, a total of eight and when we add it to the initial phases, then we see a cost of £38,000. Same thing by the time it clean is actually issued. Then we see the costs rising up to £56,000. By the time we have disclosure on witness evidence, then that cumulative cost goes up to £186,000 on just before the tribunal hearing, we see the costs going up to £262,000 by the time of decision is rendered, then that cost goes up to 277,000 pounds. So we see the benefits of 80 are in respect of the judiciary in England and Wales, at least in terms off employment cases in the United Kingdom, Turning now to the U. S. We look at the US DOJ Department of Justice 80 our reports of 2017 on We can see that the United States DOJ reported the following statistics in respect of its fiscal year ending 2017 festival in respect of the amount of money saved in litigation or discovery expenses by the use of 80 are that it is estimated for that year to be a 15,000,521 on $275 in US in respective times for attorneys and staff. Time saved it is estimated at 13,886 days. In respective months of litigation avoided, it's estimated at 1967 months on. 77% of cases referred to radio achieve benefits even if they didn't settle per se. Non quantifiable gains such as narrowing of trialist sees resolution of discovery disputes or progress towards settlement was achieved. So what? What can we conclude in respect of, uh, the use of 80 are and why years, 80 are the use of eight years, a solution that alleviates congestion in the traditional system of the country so, although there are maybe obvious benefits, the parties there are also benefits to the judiciary as a whole. In other words, everyone benefits from a DIA. It's noted that in civil system, compared to come common law systems, there is the higher cost of public funds. This is because the administrative burden is on the judiciary, not the parties or their lawyers. In contrast, this is not the case in common law system, such as the United States or England Wales. Even so, in these jurisdictions, a DIA is positively encouraged. That should be really a serious campaign to ensure that all lawyers and litigation judges are properly informed of the benefits that 80 are can bring and to alert the public as well businesses to the benefits of a TR. The English courts is outlined Some factors to consider when determining whether the party acted unreasonably in refusing to engage in a TR. We spoke earlier about how the courts have in the civil procedure rules introduced sanctions where parties refused reasonably to use, 80 are so these. These considerations are very useful in respective, when advisors should consider whether or not to recommend 80 out of the parties and consider the use of the idea so we can see in these bullet points the 1st 1 being the nature of the dispute, the second being the merits of the case. Third, an examination of whether other methods of resolution have been examined on door attempted. Whether the costs incurred by the 80 are would have been disproportionate. Whether the delays caused by the participation on organization off the 80 are would have caused injury to either party. Whether idea would have would have a reason. Prospect of success on, finally, whether a party refused to enter a DEA despite the courts encouragement. So what is the conclusion of all this is that a TR is a full benefit to both the party to engage in it and also on the judicial system, which is ultimately funded by the public purse. All parties who are engaging in any form of disputes which potentially should go to court should consider the use of 80 are on. I have no doubt that you should gets either a full resolution at a much cheaper rates. What the very least, as the USDOJ study concluded, there will be non pecuniary benefits which you will be able to benefit from. That's all for me. Thank you very much.
Webinar
Notes
171 Users
1 Courses
2 Reviews
