The civil courts and alternative dispute resolution: the civil court structure and the track system, appeals, and the forms, advantages and disadvantages of negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to describe the civil court structure and the track system, set out the appeal routes, and explain and evaluate the four main forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as alternatives to litigation.

The civil courts and the track system

Appeals depend on the track and the court. From the County Court an appeal generally goes to a higher judge or to the High Court; from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), and finally to the Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance.

Alternative dispute resolution

• Negotiation is the most informal: the parties (or their solicitors) talk directly to reach a settlement.
• Mediation uses a neutral third party who facilitates discussion but does not impose a solution; the parties keep control of the outcome.
• Conciliation is similar to mediation, but the conciliator takes a more active role and may suggest the basis for a settlement; it is common in employment disputes through ACAS.
• Arbitration is the most formal. The parties agree to refer the dispute to an arbitrator whose decision (the award) is binding and enforceable under the Arbitration Act 1996. Many commercial contracts contain a Scott v Avery clause requiring arbitration.

Advantages of ADR include lower cost, speed, privacy, flexibility and the preservation of relationships. Disadvantages include the lack of a binding outcome (except arbitration), no legal aid, an imbalance of power between the parties, and no system of precedent.

It is worth understanding why the courts press parties towards ADR. Litigation is expensive, slow and adversarial, and the Civil Procedure Rules require parties to consider settlement; a party who unreasonably refuses to mediate can be penalised in costs (Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust, PGF II v OMFS). ADR also relieves pressure on an overloaded court system. The forms can be ranked by formality and by who controls the outcome: negotiation and mediation leave the decision entirely with the parties, conciliation adds a more directive third party, and arbitration hands the decision to a neutral expert whose award is final and enforceable, with only limited grounds of appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996. Arbitration suits commercial disputes where confidentiality and technical expertise matter, while mediation suits family and neighbour disputes where preserving a relationship is important. A strong evaluation matches the form of ADR to the type of dispute and weighs the savings against the loss of the safeguards, precedent and enforceability that a court judgment provides.

How this topic is examined

Civil courts and ADR are examined through descriptive questions on procedure and evaluative questions comparing ADR with litigation. Examiners reward correctly naming the tracks and forms of ADR, distinguishing mediation from conciliation and arbitration, and a reasoned conclusion on the best route for a given dispute.