•  
  •  
 

Authors

Peter Condliffe

Abstract

Extract:

In 2001 NADRAC stated:

Despite their methodological shortcomings, research studies appear to support some of the claims of ADR, namely that it is responsive, quick, fair and informal, and that it is cheaper than litigation. Most parties appear to value ADR, and seem capable of making distinctions between substantive satisfaction and procedural satisfaction in that, while they may be unhappy with the outcome of the dispute, they appreciate the fairness of the procedure and the competence of practitioners.

Research by the author has raised some questions about how confidently one can assert, as NADRAC did in 2001, that adverse outcomes do not impact upon perceptions of the process.

Share

COinS