An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

The development of an effective and efficient dispute resolution processes for strata scheme disputes in peninsular Malaysia

Dispute resolution in strata schemes in Peninsular Malaysia should focus on more than just "settlement." The quality of the outcome, its sustainability and its relevance in supporting the basic principles of a good neighbourhood and self-governance in a strata scheme are also fundamental. Based on the comprehensive law movement, this thesis develops a theoretical framework for strata scheme disputes within the parameters of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and problem-solving courts. The therapeutic orientation of this model offers approaches that promote positive communication between disputing parties, preserve neighbour relations and optimise people's psychological and emotional well-being.

Online Dispute Resolution: The Next Phase

Ce texte traite de l’évolution des modes alternatifs de résolution de conflit (MARC) en ligne. L’auteur dresse un historique des différents projets de médiation en ligne en passant par ses « débuts » en 1999 lorsque l’Online Ombuds Office (OOO) fut approché pour l’élaboration d’un système de médiation pour les clients d’eBay, par SquareTrade.com, par les règles de l’ICANN, par Cybersettle et Clicknsettle, etc. Il expose ensuite le courrant que prendra la cybermédiation et le cyberarbitrage dans les années à venir. Ainsi, le médium informatique devient lentement une « quatrième partie » aux discussions et peut venir en aide aux arbitres et aux médiateurs dans la gestion et la communication d’informations. De plus les fonctions d’affichages propres aux ordinateurs, c’est-à-dire la possibilité d’incorporer images, graphiques, plans, etc., devront être mis à l’œuvre par les systèmes de MARC en ligne si ceux-ci sont destinés à prendre de l’expansion dans d’autres domaines que ceux leur étant présentement réservés.

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.

O papel do terceiro facilitador na conciliação de conflitos previdenciários

A conciliação judicial de conflitos previdenciários envolve, em geral, uma proposta de acordo baseada na renúncia pelo indivíduo de parte dos valores do benefício em atraso em um processo no qual a decisão contrária ao entendimento do Instituto Nacional do Segurado Social (INSS) é muito provável. Como regra, há um notório desequilíbrio de poder envolvendo, de um lado, um litigante ocasional (indivíduo) e, de outro, um litigante habitual (INSS). O presente trabalho pretende discutir qual o papel do terceiro facilitador nesse contexto, de modo a legitimar a prática existente e avançar para uma mudança de paradigma. Para tanto, parte-se da tese de que a conciliação deve ser adequada ao conflito que se pretende tratar, cabendo ao terceiro facilitador atuar de acordo com as peculiaridades desse conflito. Desse modo, propõe-se que, para o tratamento do conflito previdenciário, o conceito de conciliador deve ser entendido em termos amplos, abrangendo não apenas o conciliador leigo, mas também o juiz conciliador e o Judiciário como conciliador interinstitucional. Embora cada uma dessas atuações possua características próprias, sustenta-se que o ponto em comum é o respeito a um devido processo legal mínimo que possibilite a existência de uma base adequada de poder e que permita, assim, a tomada de uma decisão informada pelas partes. Dessa forma, a flexibilidade instrumental própria da conciliação não impediria o estabelecimento de parâmetros mínimos da atuação do conciliador. Por isso, tendo como limite a tomada de uma decisão informada, o conciliador atuaria por meio de estratégias variadas, aproximando-se e distanciando-se das partes, com maior ou menor interferência, de acordo com as características do caso apresentado. Conclui-se que, com a atuação conjunta e coordenada das diversas espécies de conciliador é possível aprimorar qualitativamente a conciliação de conflitos previdenciários.

Women and ADR

Alternative dispute resolution, or ‘ADR’, is defined by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council as: … an umbrella term for processes, other than judicial determination, in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them. ADR is commonly used as an abbreviation for alternative dispute resolution, but can also be used to mean assisted or appropriate dispute resolution. Some also use the term ADR to include approaches that enable parties to prevent or manage their own disputes without outside assistance. A broad range of ADR processes are used in legal practice contexts, including, for example, arbitration, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, conferencing, case appraisal and neutral evaluation. Hybrid processes are also used, such as med-arb in which the practitioner starts by using mediation, and then shifts to using arbitration. ADR processes generally fall into one of three general categories: facilitative, advisory or determinative. In a facilitative process, the ADR practitioner has the role of assisting the parties to reach a mutually agreeable outcome to the dispute by helping them to identify the issues in dispute, and to develop a range of options for resolving the dispute. Mediation and facilitated negotiation are examples of facilitative processes. ADR processes that are advisory involve the practitioner appraising the dispute, providing advice as to the facts of the dispute, the law and then, in some cases, articulating possible or appropriate outcomes and how they might be achieved. Case appraisal and neutral evaluation are examples of advisory processes. In a determinative ADR process, the practitioner evaluates the dispute (which may include the hearing of formal evidence from the parties) and makes a determination. Arbitration is an example of a determinative ADR process. The use of ADR processes has increased significantly in recent years. Indeed, in a range of contemporary legal contexts the use of an ADR process is now required before a party is able to file a matter in court. For example, Juliet Behrens discusses in Chapter 11 of this book how the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) now effectively mandates attendance at pre-filing family dispute resolution in parenting disputes. At the state level, in Queensland, for example, attendance at a conciliation conference can be required in anti-discrimination matters, and is encouraged in residential tenancy matters, and in personal injuries matters the parties must attend a preliminary compulsory conference. Certain ADR processes are used more commonly in the resolution of particular disputes. For example, in family law contexts, mediation and conciliation are generally used because they provide the parties with flexibility in terms of process and outcome while still ensuring that the negotiations occur in a positive, structured and facilitated framework. In commercial contexts, arbitration and neutral evaluation are often used because they can provide the parties with a determination of the dispute that is factually and legally principled, but which is also private and more timely than if the parties went to court. Women, as legal personalities and citizens of society, can find themselves involved in any sort of legal dispute, and therefore all forms of ADR are relevant to women. Perhaps most commonly, however, women come into contact with facilitative ADR processes. For example, through involvement in family law disputes women will encounter family dispute resolution processes, such as mediation. In this chapter, therefore, the focus is on facilitative ADR processes and, particularly, issues for women in terms of their participation in such processes. The aim of this chapter is to provide legal practitioners with an understanding of issues for women in ADR to inform your approach to representing women clients in such processes, and to guide you in preparing women clients for their participation in ADR. The chapter begins with a consideration of the ways in which facilitative ADR processes are positive for women participants. Next, some of the disadvantages for women in ADR are explored. Finally, the chapter offers ways in which legal practitioners can effectively prepare women clients for participation in ADR. Before embarking on a discussion of issues for women in ADR, it is important to acknowledge that women’s experiences in these dispute resolution environments, whilst often sharing commonalities, are diverse and informed by a range of factors specific to each individual woman; for example, her race or socio-economic background. This discussion, therefore, addresses some common issues for women in ADR that are fundamentally gender based. It must be noted, however, that providing advice to women clients about participating in ADR processes requires legal practitioners to have a very good understanding of the client as an individual, and her particular needs and interests. Some sources of diversity are discussed in Chapters 13, 14 and 15.

Teaching dispute resolution ethics in the law curriculum

Dispute resolution processes such as mediation are now central to contemporary legal practice. For this reason it is critical that the law curriculum includes instruction on mediation ethics, so that law graduates enter the profession equipped to deal with ethical dilemmas arising in this context. However, our recent content analysis of the unit outlines for professional responsibility subjects in Australian law schools indicates that this important area of legal ethics is often excluded from the curriculum. In most Australian law schools, dispute resolution subjects (where mediation ethics might also be considered) continue to be offered as stand-alone electives in the law degree. This means that many law students are graduating without the ethical knowledge and judgment-making skills needed in dispute resolution environments. This is contrary to the intentions of the Threshold Learning Outcomes for Law. This paper argues that the current paucity of mediation ethics instruction in the Australian law curriculum is problematic, given mediation’s relevance to contemporary legal practice. The paper discusses the importance of including mediation ethics in the law curriculum, and the importance of dispute resolution more broadly as a mandatory component of the law degree in Australia. It offers an outline of a possible mediation ethics module that could be included in professional responsibility subjects.

Comparison of the effects of litigation and ADR in South-East Queensland

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as arbitration, are often used instead of litigation to resolve construction disputes, as industry folklore considers litigation overly expensive and time-consuming. But is this actually the case? Do the people most involved in construction dispute resolution agree? What are the real advantages and disadvantages of using litigation or ADR? When, if ever, is litigation the most appropriate way of resolving construction disputes? To answer these questions, this paper first provides a review of the literature on the use of litigation and ADR for construction dispute resolution. This is followed by the results of a survey of construction and legal personnel with moderate to extensive experience of dispute resolution in the Australian South-East Queensland construction industry. The main results of this are that, in addition to litigation being more expensive in money and time than ADR methods, the nature of the existing relationship between the parties has an important effect on the resolution process, what happens after an unsuccessful ADR and, if adversarial, is more likely to lead to litigation. The results are then validated and verified by one of the most experienced practitioners in claims and disputes in the whole of Australia.