Dispute resolution outside of courts: procedural justice and decision acceptance among users of ombuds services in the UK

Attitudes towards legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.

Online Dispute Resolution: Some Implications for the Emergence of Law in Cyberspace

"L’auteur Ethan Katsh analyse les problématiques posées par les relations de la communauté virtuelle de l’Internet et son processus en ligne de résolution des conflits. Il explique comment le cyberespace constitue un environnement intégral et indépendant qui développe ses propres règles normatives. L’évolution des normes au sein du cyberespace semble être une conséquence des interactions entre les acteurs, sans intervention législative fondamentale de la part des états. L’auteur trace l’évolution, depuis le début des années 1990, du processus en ligne de résolution des différends, principalement dans le domaine du commerce électronique. L’accroissement rapide des relations commerciales électroniques a entraîné une hausse des litiges dans ce domaine. Dans le cadre de tels litiges, les moyens en ligne de résolution des conflits offrent aux justiciables plus de facilité, de flexibilité et d’accessibilité que les moyens alternatifs traditionnels de résolution des conflits. C’est donc dans ce contexte qu’a été développé le système ""Squaretrade"" qui a pour objectif d’aider la résolution de conflits entre les utilisateurs de ""E-Bay"". Ce système présente l’avantage important d’encadrer et d’uniformiser le processus de résolution en définissant les termes généraux et spécifiques du conflit. L’auteur soutient que la principale fonction d’un tel système est d’organiser et d’administrer efficacement les communications entre les parties. Ainsi, cette fonction préserve le ""paradigme de la quatrième personne"", nécessaire aux processus alternatifs traditionnels de résolution de conflits. Par ailleurs, cette fonction, en tant que partie intégrante du programme informatique, constitue pour les justiciables une alternative intéressante aux règles législatives. Pour l’auteur, l’analyse de ce phénomène soulève des questions importantes concernant la création de normes et leur acceptation par les citoyens. L’auteur analyse par la suite le concept général de la formation des normes dans le contexte d’un environnement non régularisé. Il soutient que les normes émergeantes doivent toujours viser à développer une forme de légitimité auprès des justiciables. Dans le cadre du processus en ligne de résolution des conflits, cette légitimité doit être acquise autant auprès des parties au litige qu’auprès de la population en général. Toutefois, les attentes des parties au litige sont souvent très différentes de celles du public. L’auteur illustre ainsi comment certains processus en ligne de résolution de conflit ne réussissent pas à obtenir une telle légitimité, alors que d’autres s’établissent en tant qu’institutions reconnues. Dans ce contexte, les institutions en ligne de résolution de conflits devront développer leur propre valeur normative. Ainsi, les moyens en ligne de résolution des conflits remettent en question le processus traditionnel de formation des normes et peuvent être considérés comme des éléments d’un nouvel environnement normatif."

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

Lawyers' role options in family dispute resolution

Both family lawyers and family dispute resolution practitioners are“gatekeepers” to the family law system.In this article the authors explore,with reference to recent research, the characteristics shown to be present in successful collaborative relationships between these two groups of professionals. They then apply Rundle’s spectrum of contributions that lawyers can make to mediation to the family law context and explore the various role options for family lawyers in family dispute resolution.

Dispute resolution across platforms : offshore gambling industry & EVE online

Contemporary online environments suffer from a regulatory gap; that is there are few options for participants between customer service departments and potentially expensive court cases in foreign jurisdictions. Whatever form of regulation ultimately fills that gap will be charged with determining whether specific behavior, within a specific environment, is fair or foul; whether it’s cheating or not. However, cheating is a term that, despite substantial academic study, remains problematic. Is anything the developer doesn’t want you to do cheating? Is it only if your actions breach the formal terms of service? What about the community norms, do they matter at all? All of these remain largely unresolved questions, due to the lack of public determination of cases in such environments, which have mostly been settled prior to legal action. In this paper, I propose a re-branding of participant activity in such environments into developer-sanctioned, advantage play, and cheating. Advantage play, ultimately, is activity within the environment in which the player is able to turn the mechanics of the environment to their advantage without breaching the rules of the environment. Such a definition, and the term itself, is based on the usage of the term within the gambling industry, in which advantage play is considered betting with the advantage in the players’ favor rather than that of the house. Through examples from both the gambling industry and the Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game Eve Online, I consider the problems in defining cheating, suggest how the term ‘advantage play’ may be useful in understanding participants behavior in contemporary environments, and ultimately consider the use of such terminology in dispute resolution models which may overcome this regulatory gap.

Analysis of construction dispute review boards

The construction industry has long been burdened with inherent adversarial relationships among the parties and the resulting disputes. Dispute review boards (DRBs) have emerged as alternatives to settle construction-related disputes outside courts. Although DRBs have found support in some quarters of the construction industry, the quantitative assessment of the impact of DRBs has not been adequately addressed. This paper presents the results of a research project undertaken to assess the impact of DRBs on the construction program of a large-scale highway agency. Three dimensions of DRB impact were assessed: (1) influence on project cost and schedule performance, (2) effectiveness of DRBs in preventing and resolving construction disputes, and (3) costs of DRB implementation. The analyses encompass data from approximately 3,000 projects extending over a 10-year period (2000–2009). Quantitative measures of performance were developed and analyzed for each category. Projects that used DRBs faced reduced costs and schedule growth (6.88 and 12.92%, respectively) when compared to non-DRB projects (11.53 and 28.96%). DRBs were also found to be effective in avoiding and settling disputes; the number of arbitration cases reduced consistently after DRB implementation, and DRBs have a success rate of 97% in settling disputes for which DRBs were used. Moreover, costs of DRBs were found to comprise a relatively small fraction (i.e., approximately 0.3%) of total project budgets. It was concluded that DRBs were effective dispute prevention and resolution alternatives with no significant adverse effects on project performance.

An analysis of dispute review boards and settlement mediation as used in the Australian construction industry

If there is a silver lining to the adversarial, dispute-prone nature of the building and construction industry, it can be found in the concomitant rise of innovative dispute resolution mechanisms. Time, cost and relationship concerns have meant that the formal adversarial system holds little appeal for disputing parties. As these alternative forms of dispute avoidance/resolution have matured in Australia over the last 20 years, attention has turned to the key characteristics of each process and their suitability to the building and construction industry. This article considers the role of dispute review boards (DRBs) and mediation as two alternative methods for avoiding/resolving disputes in the construction industry. Criteria are established for evaluating the efficacy of these procedures and their sensitivity to the needs of construction industry disputants. The ultimate conclusion reached is that DRBs represent a powerful, yet underutilised dispute resolution tool in Australia, and possess many industry-specific advantages that more traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (particularly mediation) do not provide.

Representing clients from courtroom to mediation settings : switching hats between adversarial advocacy and dispute resolution advocacy

In the vast majority of cases legal representation in mediation can provide many advantages for clients. However, in some, progress can be thwarted when lawyers do not understand the goals of the mediation process and their dispute resolution advocacy role. This article will explore some of the similarities and differences between the knowledge and skills that lawyers can draw upon when representing clients in adversarial court hearings as compared with non-adversarial settings, such as in mediations. One key distinction is the different approaches that legal representatives can use to effectively act in the best interests of clients. This article will highlight how an appreciation of such distinctions can assist lawyers to “switch” hats between their adversarial and non-adversarial roles. In particular, an understanding that the duty to promote the best interests of clients in mediation is consistent with a collaborative and problem-solving approach can greatly assist in the resolution process.

Gambling & gaming : power relations in dispute resolution

Who, ultimately, has power? Is it the senior executive with his finger on the off switch, is it the users themselves who make the decision to participate and contribute financially, or is it those who report on the actions of the company with the ability to reach large numbers of existing and potential players? In both the gambling and gaming industries, power is up for grabs. This work undertakes to consider how norms are formed in online gaming communities; that is, how the developers and players negotiate amongst themselves both how the game will operate. Also considered is how to resolve disputes that arise, and what power and limitations each side has when they need to make an impact – from developers switching off the server, to players quitting en-mass or causing disruption within the environment (using the recent example of Eve Online). Outside of the direct sphere of the game however a third party lurks – commentators. These may take the form of well established review sites, community forums or, in the case of the gambling industry, dispute resolution services but their power stake is clear – by publicising and interpreting the acts of both developers and players, they are in a position to influence whether current players stick with a company, whether new players join a company and how the company is perceived in the wider community.

Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) : An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government’s failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

Popular participation in labour law: The new labour dispute resolution tribunal

The Labour Tribunal Law (No. 45 of 2004) ushered in a new court-annexed dispute resolution system for industrial relations disputes in Japan (outlined generally in Sugeno, 2004). Similar to the lay judge system for criminal trials (Johnson and Shinomiya, Chapter 2), the new tribunal adopts an adjudicative model that blends professional and lay expertise with decisions heard by a tripartite panel comprising a professional judge and two lay judges recommended by management and labour unions respectively. The new tribunal system came into operation on 1 April 2006.