Can someone please tell me whether it is advisable for disputes to be brought to the court? what about alternative dispute resolution? is it better?
Can someone please tell me whether it is advisable for disputes to be brought to the court? what about alternative dispute resolution? is it better?
Interesting I wish i knew.
@FRong : If you wish you knew, check it up? =)
@Hitman:
Well, I for one believe that disputes should be KEPT OUT of court. This is because, most justices tend to get too emotional when dealing with certain cases. Afterall, they ARE only humans. However, we can't have robots attending to our civil cases! Thus, we have to delegate this disputes to a body NOT a person. A body acts on decisions made by the members, not by one SOLE person. This avoids foulplay. Besides that, even though justices are often taken as supreme, they can get 'dirty' at times i.e. bribes! Once again, they ARE humans! So if we have a body of some sort to settle legal disputes, the chances of bribery taking place is very very low. In one notable event in the USofA, a high court justice nicknamed himself GOD, as he can make laws with his own discretion. He has also stated that he once gave severe punishment to a teen that was on trial for theft, just because " I didn't like him". Is this justice? Disputes should be kept out of the court, and also the Judicial body should be removed as it is an eyesore to the nation. Cheers.
Bytheway, the judge was sacked due to incapacity
Disputes should not be kept out of court just to avoid misjudgement. that is not the main agenda for keeping disputes out of court. the case that you state is a secluded case and cannot be a basis for the argument. to argue on that point would undermine the whole legal system as that would mean that judges don't know how to judge. no, the pillar reason for ADR is to avoid uncertain high costs that might arise from disputes settled in court.
take this for example. if you sue a tobacco manufacturer for causing lung cancer to you, you can settle for 3m Dollars; you go home rich, they go home relieved you're history. however, if it's brought to court, (especially with jury) you can end up with either nothing at all and being in debt from legal costs or the jury can award you 500m Dollars.
like what if there are members of the jury who's immediate relative died of lung cancer? they might have a grudge and want to 'punish' these tobacco manufacturers.
or if they are heartless hardheads who insist that the plaintiff is stupid to pick up smoking in the first place. then they might award nothing.
it is the lingering uncertainty that causes ADR to be so popular. with ADR, it can provide a win-win solution. the plaintiff gets his cash and the defendant gets a controlled loss.
So should it be kept out of court? yes
like it or not, it's better than wasting the judge's time and taxpayer's money. the two squabbling parties can get out quick and if the defendant accepts a settlement then he's already admitting to guilt.
yes disputes should be kept out of court. mainly it is cost-effective and less time consuming.
Dispute should be keep out of court as judges may be bias while judging a cases, either legally or with direct interest in the case. For example, Cleanae V ANZ Banking Group Ltd, due to the judge has direct financial interest to the banking group, he has failede to disqualify himself while judging the case, and bias of the case was reported. Beside, it is also expensive and time consuming to settle legal dispute in court.
is it a much more easier way to settle dispute out of court.
first of all, it is much more cheaper and doesn't consume much time from both parties. afterall, it's the resolutions that counts right? as long as both side agrees to certain terms, going to court should be the last resort..![]()