There are four types of Alternative Dispute Resolution methods:
The above-mentioned modes are explained below.
It is an ADR technique in which a third party, generally known as a conciliator, helps the parties involve to reach proper issues, produce options, give advice and try to conclude/resolution by the of an agreement.
As conciliator is involved in this method, he/she may have expertise in one of the subject matter and gives advice to the parties and come to a resolution for disposal of the case. A conciliator can be a voluntary, court-approved, or as per mention in a contract. However, the person appointed as a conciliator cannot give decisions or judgment regarding the dispute he/she dealing with.
A conciliator can have sessions face-to-face or telephonic conversation and may hold separate time for each party to have a session with them.
It is an ADR process in which a third party is making a mediator which helps the parties to know about the specific issues, to develop options, and by themselves come to a dispute resolution.
It can only assist them in their issues and problems, but, cannot give their advice or opinion regarding the issues raised and can also not give any decision or judgment in the case.
A mediation period is always taking place face-to-face between the parties involve and one or more than one mediator is present. During mediation, the parties are asked to directly communicate, give their opinion, and come to a resolution. They may ask, for a separate session with the mediator, at any point in time. From time to time they will take a break and discuss the advice given by one party and can also ask for assistance and clarification if they want.
As a conciliator, a mediator can also be voluntary, court-approved, or as per mention in a contract. Most of the time, he/she is the person appoint by the government or approve by the court.
Arbitration is an ADR process in which an independent third party, an arbitrator, is appointed in front of whom the parties present their arguments and evidence; as a result of which the person appointed gives a binding decision. Arbitration is more useful in cases where there is more technicality & parties are more confident than on an open court.
The process of Arbitration is more formal and structured in contrast to what is there in conciliation & mediation. It’s somewhere like a Court because, in the end, the arbitrator who deals with the case gives a binding decision for both parties.
Adjudication is also a part of the ADR process in which an independent third party, refer as Judge or Adjudicator, listens to the arguments of both sides and gives a decision. It involves a faster process, usually of 28 days, for both parties to put forward their issues and case in a form of response or notice. As it is a more formal type of process, the contract between the parties provides the option of how an adjudicator should be chosen i.e., by professional bodies.
The major aspect of adjudication is the speed and the time-effective cost procedure which is followed, like that in an arbitration process. It is more like a court type of situation. Generally, it has no drawbacks but lack of proper evidence may lead to injustice with the parties and the amount invested is also non-recoverable. Both points should be kept in mind while going for this mode of ADR.