rstly, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is said to be “the techniques or procedures for resolving disputes short of trial in the public” (Grossman, et al. 2009, p.1). There has been an growing interest in ADR mainly because it was said to be less costly, faster, less threatening, more receptive to the concerns of disputants, and “more responsive to the underlying problems” (Grenig & Davies, Alternative Dispute Resolution § 1:1). Arbitration and mediation are just among the methods of alternative dispute resolution (Grossman, et al. 2009, p.1).
However, there is still a need to evaluate if indeed resort to alternative dispute resolution methods is appropriate in a particular case. As commented by Gail M. Valentine-Rutledge, these methods are not always the cure for every dispute or case that is presented (Valentine-Rutledge, 57 Am. Jur. Trials 555 (Originally published in 1995). She adds that there are cases where litigation is better suited, which may either be due to “the facts of the case, the personality or desires of the client or the personality of opposing counsel” (57 Am. Jur. Trials 555 (Originally published in 1995). Thus, to ascertain as to whether mediation will be beneficial in a specific situation, would now depend upon the factors of each specific case (Valentine-Rutledge, 1995).
Mediation or arbitration as a mode of resolving disputes, may not always be successful, hence, it is important to determine if those cases subject for mediation or arbitration have “the highest likelihood of fair and reasonable settlement” through such a process (Valentine-Rutledge, 1995). The decision on whether mediation should be chosen as a mode of dispute resolution, should be on a “case-by-case basis” bearing in mind all the important factors (Valentine-Rutledge, 1995).Thus, it is important to take into consideration “the nature of a particular case and the underlying dispute” to determine if such case is appropriate for mediation