Despite the problems encountered by both litigation process and “ADR” Alternative Dispute Resolution, it still manages to be successful to an extent to counteract any mishap and disputes. In fact, it is an indication of success of ADR which has penetrated the civil litigation system of the UK. Therefore, the core target is to resolve argument agreeably and thoughtfully consider the bargaining process while negotiating. “ADR” Alternative Dispute Resolution resolves the issues largely by allowing litigation to become less adversarial and more helpful. This is so since courts encouraged the utilization of ADR at case management conferences and pre trial reviews. It also impacted positively by reducing complexity of litigation in that the claim and defences not to be technical papers but clarity of genuine issues between parties. Both ‘statements of case’ should include certificates by parties confirming contents. Thus, these all show ground evidence of the positive impact via Lord Woolf’s reform of the ADR resolving matters. In this discussion of the following essay it seeks to emphasize the problems of Alternative dispute resolution in the civil justice system and how it counteracted these issues successfully with meticulous review of the Lord Woolf reforms which played an integral role in bringing about propositions to the forefront front to diminish the workload of civil litigation culture. In prehistoric era, while humans have always had propensity to solve their differences by fighting, they have too recognized benefits of settling matters peacefully by flipping a coin/ some other way. With pursuit for alternatives to violence gave introduction to originator of alternative dispute resolution. The English trial is adversarial. That is to say it takes the form of a sort of battle between two (supposedly) equal parties. -------------------------------------------------
The origins of the system go way back into feudal times and the very local and decentralized nature of English justice. This latter is in turn in no small measure due to the fact that power of the King had been restricted by Magna Carta in 1215. which had concluded the conflict between the King and the great Barons during the 13th century. The organization of justice in England, unlike several other European states, reflected a decentralized and local and popular element. The community remained the focus both of law (The Common Law) and of the trial. The latter, even if it took place in front of the King's judges, was based on the right of the individual to directly confront their accuser. The trial was the method of proof of guilt. The five main objectives of the civil process entails: the process should be just, accessible, timely and effective. According to Lord Woolf’s Report in 1996 it evidently emphasized that the civil justice system should be just in terms of the results it conveys, fairness in a cordial manner to litigants, create appropriate processes at reasonable cost and with speed, be effective, sufficiently resourced, organized and responsive to needs. But problems arose from civil litigation before April 1999 as the system failed to facilitate and accomplish those objectives. This is so since some aims came into disagreement with others in regards to promoting efficiency (speed) as it conflicted with requirement for equality. But more importantly, it was discovered in support of Lord Woolf’s review that it was too expensive. This means that since the processes were too long and complicated it interfered with the size of the bill. Thus, it engendered according to statistics over 40% of cases where claim was less than 12,500 pounds, one side’s costs surpassed the amount. Another drawback was that the litigation process had too many delays in that the point in time between the event giving rise to claim and trial could be three years for the country courts and five for high courts. Therefore in response to the civil justice review, extensive...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document