Advantages of ADR

• Flexible (1)

  Not bound by the strict Civil Procedure Rules within the civil courts. This means they can be tailored much more to the needs of the parties in a dispute. The nature of most types of ADR means that both parties must both agree on the type of ADR that will be used. If it is mediation, conciliation or Arbitration then they must also agree on the choice of the third party that will be involved in the case. Parties will usually be able to arrange the sessions for when is convenient for them so could schedule them for during their lunch break, in the evenings after work or of a weekend. This will prevent them having to take time off from work which is a luxury compared to civil litigation when the court timetable would dictate to them when and where the hearing will take place. As the parties can select an appropriately neutral setting this also means it is less formal and more relaxed than court.
• Flexible (2)

  Furthermore, the parties can continue trying to reach a resolution until it has been resolved but also have the freedom to stop at any time. Eg negotiation can be used from the beginning right up until the start of the court hearing. There is also flexibility with the outcome as the decision may not be a strictly legal one sticking to the letter of the law but more likely to be based on commercial common sense and compromise particularly in relation to conciliation).
• Not Adversarial

  Helping the parties involved to maintain their relationships and continue with their usual interactions after the process has ended. There is a lot more cooperation and compromise expected within the ADR process, as opposed to litigation where parties are being explicitly told what they can and cannot do. Parties involved in ADR have much greater control over the procedures, deciding on; dates, locations terms, outcomes etc. They must also both agree on the type of ADR, the third party who will hear the case and the procedures and outcomes of the hearing. Again, this dialogue and discussion encourages a fair and compromising relationship. At the end of ADR the parties concerned (e.g. a divorcing husband and wife) are less likely to feel that there has been a clear winner and loser, than if they go to Court. ADR is looking for both parties to benefit and achieve something from the process
• Cost

  Exact cost depends on which type of ADR is being used but in normal circumstances, it will work out much cheaper than civil litigation. The use of legal representation can increase the cost but small disputes are less likely to use legal representation. When using negotiation in particular, the parties are discouraged from using legal representation and conduct the negotiations themselves which is free. However, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution’s (CEDR) audit in 2016 did find that even if legal representation was used then there are still very large savings made by using ADR. It reported that 10,000 mediations had taken place in the previous 12 months saving £2.8 billion in wasted tome and fees. Conversely, the applicant in a Tribunal need not fear a large bill if they lose as it is rare for an order for costs to be made. Ultimately, there is evidence showing ADR is more cost-effective than court.
• Time (1)

  Most types of ADR are normally completed within a few hours (e.g. negotiation, mediation and conciliation) with most tribunal hearings being short and dealt with within one day. This results in the dispute being resolved a lot quicker than civil litigation which can take months for even the court hearing date. Even with the very strict timetable for pre-trial matters in fast track cases, the aim is for the case to be heard within 30 weeks, but in reality it is more likely to be nearer to 50 weeks. This means that the parties will have longer to wait usually causing more stress and anxiety of the process.
• Time (2)

  The CEDR claims that 80% of medication and conciliation cases they are asked to act are settled. It has also been found that even if the actual mediation session did not resolve the dispute, the parties are more likely to settle the case without going to court than in non-mediated cases, There is also the possibility that the issues may at least have been clarified so any court hearing will be shorter than if mediation had not been attempted.