The civil courts and dispute resolution: the civil court structure and track system, the civil appeal routes, and the forms of alternative dispute resolution (negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration) and tribunals.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers how civil disputes (claims between private parties, such as contract and tort claims) are resolved, both in the courts and outside them. You need to describe the civil court structure, the three-track case management system, the appeal routes, and the four main forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) along with tribunals. WJEC tests accurate description and an evaluation of why parties often prefer ADR to litigation.

The answer

The civil court structure

The two courts of first instance are:

• The County Court. Hears the majority of civil claims, including contract, tort and debt.
• The High Court. Hears larger and more complex claims, organised into three divisions: the King's Bench Division (contract and tort), the Chancery Division (trusts, probate, company and land), and the Family Division (family matters).

The track system

The three tracks are:

1. Small claims track: the lowest-value claims. The process is informal, parties often appear without lawyers, and costs are limited.
2. Fast track: mid-value claims. There is a strict timetable and trials are limited to one day.
3. Multi-track: high-value or legally complex claims. These are actively case-managed by a judge.

Appeals

The civil appeal route depends on where the case started and the level of judge. Broadly, appeals run up the hierarchy: from the County Court and High Court to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), and from there, with permission, to the Supreme Court on points of law of general public importance.

Tribunals

Tribunals resolve specialist disputes outside the ordinary courts, such as employment tribunals (unfair dismissal, discrimination), and social security, immigration and tax tribunals. They are intended to be cheaper, quicker and more accessible than courts, and are organised into a First-tier Tribunal and an Upper Tribunal.

Alternative dispute resolution

The four main forms of ADR are:

• Negotiation: the parties resolve the dispute themselves; cheapest, quickest and private.
• Mediation: a neutral mediator helps the parties reach their own agreement but does not impose one.
• Conciliation: like mediation, but the conciliator takes a more active role and may suggest solutions; used in employment disputes through ACAS.
• Arbitration: the parties agree to submit the dispute to an arbitrator, whose decision (the award) is binding and enforceable under the Arbitration Act 1996, and is common in commercial contracts.

Examples in context

ADR is attractive precisely because litigation is slow, expensive and public. A commercial dispute taken to court may take a year or more, expose confidential information, and damage a business relationship the parties wish to continue. Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 lets them resolve it privately before an expert of their choice, with a binding award that the courts will enforce, which is why arbitration clauses are standard in commercial contracts. For lower-value consumer disputes the small claims track plays a similar role, stripping out lawyers and costs so that ordinary people can pursue claims proportionately. The trade-off, important for evaluation, is that ADR produces no binding precedent and develops no public law.

Try this

Q1. Name the three tracks in the civil courts. [3 marks]

• Cue. The small claims track, the fast track and the multi-track.

Q2. What is the difference between mediation and arbitration? [2 marks]

• Cue. A mediator only helps the parties agree; an arbitrator imposes a binding, enforceable decision.

Q3. Explain the methods of alternative dispute resolution and assess their advantages over litigation. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. Negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration described accurately, then evaluation of cost, speed, privacy and relationships against the lack of precedent and enforcement limits.