Tribunals and Alternative
Dispute Resolution
Topic 11
Courts
Legal assistance
External merits review
Legal services
Better decision-making
Formal
justice
ADR
Legal assistance – ADR
EDR
Legal assistance – early
intervention
Informal
justice
Access to information
Resilience
Handling matters
personally
Everyday
justice
Number of
disputes
Tribunals
 Courts


Judicial review
Was the decision lawfully made
 Tribunals


Merits review
Was the decision a good decision?
Merits review
 What
is it?
 What are the objectives of it?
 The nature of merits review:
* Recommendatory
* Stand in shoes of primary
decision maker
* Hearing de novo
* Correct or/and preferable
decision
Judicial review v merits
review
A blurred distinction
Why have merits review and
does it work?
* Administrative law remedies improve the whole
system of government decision making by
increasing its openness and transparency and
providing feedback on its performance. Confident
executive government should welcome this kind of
audit.
* Accountability
is fundamental to good
governance in modern, open societies.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
 Unique
in the common law world
 General tribunal for the review of
administrative decisions
 84 members with the jurisdiction to review
administrative decisions made under more
than 400 Acts of Parliament
 Appeals lie to the Federal Court
Applying to the AAT
If you disagree with a decision of a Commonwealth Minister, a
Government Department or agency, or an employee of a Department which affects you,
you may be able to have it reviewed. The AAT has powers to review decisions
made under certain Acts of Parliament.
The sorts of decision which can be reviewed include decisions about:
•a social security pension or a benefit
•a veteran's pension
•Commonwealth workers' compensation
•an environmental issue
•taxation
•visas refused or cancelled on character grounds
•ABN cancellation
•many other Commonwealth issues
.
AAT within the portfolio of the Attorney-General
Honourable Mark Dreyfus QC MP was sworn in as
the Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency
Management on 4 February 2013
Drake v Minister for Immigration
and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 at 589 per
Bowen CJ and Deane J:
“The question for the determination of
the Tribunal is not whether the decision
which the decision maker made was
the correct or preferable one on the
material before him. The question for
the determination of the Tribunal is
whether that decision was the correct
or preferable one on the material before
the Tribunal.”
Federal Judicial Review
 Administrative
Decisions (Judicial Review)
Act 1977 (Cth)
 Federal Court
 Appeals from AAT – but not merits review
 s75(v) Constitution – High Court
jurisdiction
AAT President
The Honorable Duncan Kerr SC Chev LH,
a Senior Counsel, is the President of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
NSW Tribunals
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act
1997 (NSW) s3 includes:




make decisions at first instance
Review decisions made by administrators
Ensure accessibility, efficiency, effectiveness
and fairness
Proceedings to be informal and expeditious
The main work of the ADT is to:
* review specific administrative
decisions made by NSW government
agencies
* resolve discrimination and retail lease
disputes
* exercise disciplinary powers
over some professions.
The ADT is independent of
government. Its aim is to be
accessible, efficient and fair.
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
 General
Division
 Community Services Division
 Revenue Division
 Legal Services Division
 Equal Opportunity Division
 Retail Leases Division
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
 Two


jurisdictions:
Reviewable decisions
Original decisions – analogous to civil
suits
Formal and informal hearing
rooms
Updated picture on former
website
The creation of the ADT made it the first tribunal in New South
Wales with a divergent, multijurisdictional character….
While some existing State tribunals were merged into the new ADT,
the Attorney noted that as many as 21 State tribunals remained
outside its structure. He referred to the values served by
consolidation: greater coherence for the public, greater
transparency and professionalism, greater ability to introduce good
procedures and practices, better use of public resources, avoidance
of duplication of similar structures, and the avoidance of perception
of conflict of interest where the portfolio department has a
substantial involvement in proceedings in a portfolio tribunal.
Annual Report, 2007-2008, p6
President Kevin O’Connor
At common law, administrators do not have to give reasons for their
decisions regardless of how significant or damaging they may be for
the individual. The ADT legislation modified that rule. Administrators
were now obliged to give reasons for those decisions made reviewable
before the ADT.
In the second reading speech the Attorney expressed a broad view as
to the administrative decisions that citizens could look forward to
seeing reviewed by the ADT. As it has transpired a much narrower
range of decisions has been made reviewable.
Giving affected persons a right to seek external review remains a
choice, in the first instance, for the various portfolios of Government
and, ultimately, Cabinet. So far as I am aware, there is no transparent
discipline or policy governing the matter…..There have been some
instances where the review jurisdiction has been removed or reduced
by amending legislation, without any public explanation, soon after
decisions have gone against an agency.
10 year anniversary of the ADT: Annual Report 2007-2008 p 5
As at the end of the current year, the
average time from filing to disposal of
primary applications in the Tribunal
was 0.65 of a year (i.e. 7.8 months).
The average time from filing to
disposal in the case of an appeal was
0.55 of a year (i.e. 6.7 months). The
collective average was 0.64 (i.e. 7.7
months). There has been a decline in
the speed of disposal, as compared to
five years ago, when the figures were
0.54 for primary applications, 0.31 for
appeals, and collectively 0.52 (i.e. 6.3
months). The collective average has
now been slowing incrementally each
year. The Divisional Heads have been
asked to suggest ways in which the
turnaround time can be improved.”
ADT Annual Report 2007-2008
A super tribunal?
Alternative Dispute
Resolution
ADR
 Litigation
has been the traditional focus of
dispute resolution, but often not the only
appropriate form of dispute resolution
 ‘Alternative’ forms of dispute resolution
becoming increasingly important
 Both Courts (s71) and ADR methods such
as conciliation and arbitration (s51(xxxv))
recognised in Constitution
ADR same as Court?
 ADR
not just a different type of court
 Court: exercises the judicial power of the
State
 Tribunal: exercises executive (and
sometimes judicial) power of the State
 ADR: may be voluntary/may be binding –
depends on agreement between parties
 ADR: often a private contractual
arrangement
ADR
 “Alternative”
– can convey these dispute
resolution methods are of secondary
importance
 Additional?
 Litigation alternative to ‘traditional’ mortal
combat?
 “Dispute resolution” as a range of options
(including litigation) – select most
appropriate to circumstances and client
ADR won’t suit all situations
ADR: tactics and strategy
Development of ADR in Australia
Three key events:
 Establishment
of the Family Law
Court
 Establishment of Community Justice
Centres in NSW
 Establishment of the Australian
Commercial Disputes Centre
Family Law Court
 Family

designed to be informal and incorporate pretrial processes such as counselling and
conferences
 Family



Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth)
ADR designated “primary dispute resolution”
Funded community based services such as
Relationships Australia and Centacare
Broad view of dispute and methods of
resolution
Community Justice Centres - NSW
 Community
Justice Centres (NSW Pilot
Project) Act 1980 (NSW)
 pioneered use of mediation in public issue
disputes, victim offender mediation
(conferencing) and family mediation.
 resolve disputes through mediation, free of
charge to members of the public
 Spurred development of Lawyers Engaged
in ADR (LEADR)
Australian Commercial Disputes
Centre
 Company
established with government
assistance
 Successful in fostering use of ADR
techniques, especially mediation, in
commercial disputes
 Government response to ADR now largely
seen in legislative ADR schemes
ADR - definitions
 Accurate,
comprehensive definitions can
be difficult
 National Alternative Dispute Resolution
Advisory Council – NADRAC
 “processes, other than judicial
determination, in which an impartial
person assists those in a dispute to
resolve the issues between them.”
NADRAC definitions

Facilitative processes: an ADR practitioner
assists the parties to a dispute to identify the
disputed issues, develop options, consider
alternatives and endeavour to reach an
agreement about some issues or the whole
dispute. E.g. mediation, facilitation and
facilitated negotiation.
 Advisory processes: an ADR practitioner
considers and appraises the dispute and
provides advice as to the facts of the dispute,
the law, and in some cases, possible or
desirable outcomes and how these may be
achieved. E.g. expert appraisal, case appraisal,
case presentation, mini-trial and early neutral
evaluation.
NADRAC definitions

Determinative processes: ADR practitioner
evaluates the dispute and makes a
determination. E.g. arbitration, expert
determination and private judging.
 Combined or hybrid processes: ADR
practitioner may play multiple roles. E.g. in
conciliation and in conferencing, the ADR
practitioner may facilitate discussions, as well as
provide advice on the merits of the dispute. In
hybrid processes, such as med-arb, the
practitioner first uses one process (mediation)
and then a different one (arbitration).
Why ADR?
 Benefits



Cost – usually cheaper
Time – usually faster
Relationships – can be preserved. Consider
the effect of litigation on relationships. Court
system always adversarial.
 Benefits


for clients
for courts
Pre-trial/case management processes reduce
workload of court
Reduces costs and delays across the system
Why ADR?
 Effective
in achieving lasting settlement of
disputes



Parties actively engaged
Avoids ‘winners’ and ‘losers’
ALRC report: “70.6% of the mediation
agreements with monetary settlement were
reported to be paid in full, compared to 33.8%
of the adjudications.”
Why ADR
BATNA
An acronym described by Roger Fisher and William Ury
which means Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It
is the alternative action that will be taken should your
proposed agreement with another party result in an
unsatisfactory agreement or when an agreement fails to
materialize. If the potential results of your current negotiation
only offers a value that is less than your BATNA, there is no
point in proceeding with the negotiation, and one should use
their best available alternative option instead. Prior to the
start of negotiations, each party should have ascertained
their own individual BATNA.
Why ADR?
 Promoted


by government as best practice
Commonwealth Legal Services Directions
2005
‘model litigants’ - endeavour to avoid,
prevent and limit the scope of litigation
wherever possible.
 Professional

obligation?
Should be able to advise clients about all
options and best options.
Federal approach to ADR
Some ADR required by legislation prior to any claim in:
 Federal Court (Federal Court of Australia Act 1976)
 Family Court of Australia (Family Law Act 1975)
 Federal Magistrates Court (Federal Magistrates Act 1999)
 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986)
 Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Workplace
Relations Act 1996)
 Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Administrative Appeals
Tribunal Act 1975)
 National Native Title Tribunal (Native Title Act 1993)
 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Trade
Practices Act 1974), and
 Social Security Appeals Tribunal (Social Security Act 1991).
State approach to ADR
 Similar
approach at State level
 e.g. Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen
6
 “The Court’s power does not depend
on the consent of the parties, or of any
of the parties”
Types of ADR
 Negotiation
 Mediation
 Neutral
Evaluation
 Conciliation
 Expert Referral
 Arbitration
 Family Dispute Resolution
 Ombudsmen
 Youth Justice Conferencing
 Circle Sentencing
 Negotiation




Conflict of interests between parties
No established rules to resolve conflict
Parties are seeking agreement
May or may not involve third party
 Mediation



Generally involves the use of a trained,
neutral third party
Process – oriented: mediator facilitates
Substance – oriented: mediator offers
recommendations
 Neutral



evaluation
Neutral evaluator seeks to identify and reduce
the issues of fact and law which are in dispute
Offers opinion as to likely outcome of dispute
Similar to a mini-trial
 Conciliation


Parties, with the assistance of neutral
conciliator, identify issues and develop
options and alternatives
Conciliator advises but does not determine
 Expert


referral
Usually established by legislation
Expert panels used by State courts and
tribunals
 Arbitration



Formal dispute resolution process governed
by Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) or
equivalents
Binding determination
Also industrial arbitration
 Family



Dispute Resolution
Independent practitioner assists those
separated or divorced, or considering
separation or divorce to resolve some or all of
disputes
Operates in Family Law context and designed
to avoid Court altogether (where possible).
Now required prior to seeking any Family
Court order relating to a child
 Ombudsmen

Established in many government departments
and some private industries
 Youth



Example of ADR in criminal context
NSW scheme to divert young offenders from
the courts by requiring them to meet the
victim of their behaviour
Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW)
 Circle



Justice Conferencing
Sentencing
Current NSW trial
Designed to empower the Aboriginal
community in the sentencing process
Punishment to be a community sanction