Here is my response, any feedback or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
VCAT is a better alternative to solving disputes in comparison to courts. Critically evaluate the extent to which you agree with the statement. (10 marks)
VCAT is a much more effective and efficient way of dealing with and solving civil disputes in relation to courts.
VCAT is a tribunal which aims to solve a variety of civil disputes in a less formal and effective manner. VCAT does not consist of a formal and intimidating atmosphere like courts, due to the absence of strict rules and procedures. Because VCAT does not have compulsory rules and procedures, the parties at dispute feel less intimated and more comfortable. This makes it much easier to solve the dispute. However courts on the other hand, follow a very formal procedure, where the trial is also held in a formal manner, in court. The strict rules and procedures used often make witnesses and parties feel uncomfortable and nervous, consequently resulting in an unsatisfied outcome. Because witnesses may feel intimidated by the procedure, witnesses may declare things that the legal representation is wanting to hearing rather than the truth. This therefore clearly highlights the strengths of VCAT as a means of solving dispute while also illustrating the negative effects of courts.
Moreover, VCAT is a less expensive and therefore a more satisfying procedure in relation to courts. Because VCAT does not require a legal representation and court fees, it is financially more affordable and less costly than going to court. This means that the dispute parties feel less burdened by the cost of the process and therefore are able to more easily concentrate on the issue and look for a solution. Courts, on the other hand tend to have very expensive fee, depending on the seriousness of the offence and a compulsory legal representation is required. Legal representations tend to be fairly expensive and therefore increase the cost dramatically. This can be an extensively large issue for parties in court, which are unable to afford a legal representation as it puts them in a disadvantaged position. In courts, one party may be assisted with a better legal representation due to their wealth while another party has no legal representation. This may result in the party that has a better legal representation winning, rather than the truth proceeding.
Furthermore, VCAT is a quicker process than courts, and therefore is more time-efficient and productive. Disputes at VCAT are generally resolved in a timely manner. Mediation can be arranged at any time. VCAT aims to hear disputes within 30 days from application. Whereas courts are really time consuming, which means that the case can take months until an outcome is provided. Furthermore, unlike VCAT courts tend to have many delays which further enhance the time taken to solve disputes thus negatively impacting the verdict. For example, if in a serious civil trial the case faces many delays, the verdict of the jury members (if any) or the judge/Magistrate can be ambiguous as they are forced to consider evidences and witnesses that were presented months ago. Thus, it is likely that the outcome of the case will be unfair.
Lastly, proceedings that occur via VCAT (ADR methods) are confidential which is an advantage to the parties because private matters are not being disclosed to outside parties. This provides for the reputation of both parties and ensures that neither party is discriminated upon or their reputation is not ruined in society. However, court cases are generally open to the public, which means that their reputation is at risk, which can impact on their career in the future.
Thus, evidently VCAT is a more efficient and effective manner to resolve disputes rather than courts. VCAT is less expensive, less formal, confidential and less time consuming.
Critically evaluate the effectiveness of judicial determination. (6 marks) Judicial determination involves parties presenting their case to a judge, magistrate or VCAT member who decides the outcome of the case by imposing a legally binding decision.
The decision made in judicial determination is legally binding; this means that both parties must follow the decision made and therefore prevents future disputes from occurring as a compulsory solution has already been reached. However, both parties may not feel satisfied with the outcome reached and therefore may result in a win-to-lose outcome rather than a win-to-win, where both parties are satisfied with the outcome reached.
Moreover, the judicial officers are experienced legal professionals with experience and skills in the law, legal process, legal disputes and their resolution. This means that the outcome reached is more likely to be just and quick. However judicial officers are bound to follow the formality in their trials/hearings and are not therefore able to assist unrepresented parties. This means that the judicial officer’s capabilities and expertise’s are not able to be used to its full extent.
However the formal nature of the process suits some parties and there is an element of fairness as parties to the case are subject to the same rules of evidence and procedure. This ensures justices, as both parties must follow the same procedure and therefor results in a fairer outcome. However some parties may feel uncomfortable and intimidated by the formality of judicial determination, which may mean that they are unable to present their case to the best of their ability, thus resulting in an unfair trial.
Judicial determination is an effective means of solving disputes and contains many advantages and disadvantages.
Thank you
Home
Help
Search
Login
