Disputes with other people or organisations are never fun, but they are occasionally necessary. Which line of action you choose to settle a conflict depends on the circumstances? As courts’ workloads continue to expand, other methods of dispute resolution are becoming more popular. Where does litigation and dispute resolution stand in the light of the increasing use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and arbitration? This post will discuss some of the fundamental benefits of litigation and why it’s still an excellent tool for resolving conflicts.

Public record

Litigation has several benefits, including that it is handled in a court of law and becomes a part of the public record. Because of this, the final decision establishes a clear line in the sand for all parties involved. Of course, you may ask why this is a benefit. If a disagreement is made public, doesn’t it put your name and company’s reputation at risk? Indeed, this is one of the arguments. Still, the fact is that although arbitration and other ways of dispute settlement may give anonymity, there is no assurance that information will not be leaked. A company may be dogged by a public notion of “no smoke without fire” in some instances, making it difficult to establish one’s vindication publicly.

When it comes to a lawsuit, there is no room for ambiguity. Social media is a great place to deploy this technique since allegations may spread swiftly and without any chance of correction. If a public “putting straight of the record” is necessary to minimise or even heal reputational harm, it may be helpful.

Working together

There is no escaping the truth that conflict resolution is a two-way street. It’s frustrating. An unwilling partner might make this much more difficult. This issue can be solved via litigation since court-ordered deadlines and conditions are far more challenging to violate than those set by the parties. A court can resolve a disagreement without the need for a hearing. In addition, the court may enable other parties to join proceedings if there is a multi-party conflict. It may need separate processes in arbitration.

The value of the preceding

When a case is prosecuted to trial, it establishes a precedent, which is helpful in the future. It implies that parties may use precedents from comparable situations to support their arguments. It is a constant benefit of litigation and dispute resolution since it expedites the settlement of disputes involving identical claims. These are beneficial if you discover that you or your firm are the target of false accusations and don’t want to waste time refuting them one by one. Contrarily, one of the most common criticisms of commercial arbitration is that no precedents have been established. Some information concerning arbitral awards may be made public even when arbitration processes are kept secret. Because of this, litigation has a significant benefit in terms of precedent, which can be used to resolve disputes.

The appeals process

Appeals may be both a benefit and a disadvantage depending on the situation. While appeals are useless if you’re on the winning side, they might give an obvious benefit if you’re looking at the situation objectively. As a first step, appeals give you a chance to correct any errors. When it comes to arbitration, it is far more difficult to overturn an arbitrator’s decision.

The last piece of evidence

The rules of evidence in the courts are substantially stricter. If your argument is solid, this is a significant benefit since it eliminates any possibility for error due to speculative reasoning. For example, these norms are less evident in ADR, as a greater authority is given to the individual arbiter. A result may be decided by facts and information that are generally not considered relevant to a lawsuit.

The price of a product or service

It’s hardly something you’d expect to find on the list of perks of litigation! If you assume that ADR is always less expensive than litigation, you’d be wrong. If the disagreement is modest and can be settled swiftly in court, litigation may be a more cost-effective choice. Solicitors’ costs and arbitrator’s fees are only two examples of the cost-implications involved in ADR, but in other situations, a venue may also be required.