Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to various mechanisms used to settle disputes other by the means of the court system. They may include facilitated settlement negotiations where the conflicting parties are inspired to hold direct negotiation with each other before they hold an official arbitration system (Rawlings, Leyland & Young, 2013). ADR involves the intervention of a third party to resolve the conflict between the differing parties. Mediation increases the certainty of attaining a solution to disputes. The mediator should be well versed with matters of law and could be a judge or an advocate (Law Teacher, 2014).
The parties should have a high probability of the outcome of the mediation process before engaging a third party to listen to his or her views. The outcome of the mediation process may not very much be compared to litigation through the court system and even more, the procedure is conducted in a friendly environment (Thompson & Gordon, 2014, p. 134). However, the mediation process could result in additional expense in some cases and the possibility of delay in case the parties fail to arrive at an agreement. In the case of Halsey v Milton Keynes , the court provided direction
ADR is beneficial to the disputing parties because it helps them reach consensus at greater efficiency and cost-effectively (Loveland, 2012, p. 68). Cost efficiency is achieved where the mediation process is carried out through the Family Mediation Service or court system because most of the costs are borne by the state. Furthermore, even in a situation where mediation is provided by private mediators, the cost is shared by the parties concerned. Therefore, ADR is can be a cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism though this will be only applicable in cases where there is a successful settlement of the issues between the parties involved. . .