VCAT: ADR

[coopercorbett]

I've searched high and low for the answer to my question, and scrolled through multiple Legal textbooks and everywhere has a contradictory answer. So can someone on here please put me out of my misery, which method of ADR does VCAT *mainly* utilize. I understand that in particular circumstances ie. if the president hears the case, that the form of resolution can be considered judicial determination. But, does that mean any decisions made by a member of VCAT, but not a president or vice-president, is arbitration?

Thanks,
Confused Legal Student.

[meganrobyn]

Just a few clarifications, sorry.

Arbitration is absolutely legally binding when done through VCAT, and does not need to be ratified. Ratification is something that happens to a private agreement, to make it legally enforceable. VCAT orders are enforceable through the MC if one party doesn't follow the order.

The main form of dispute resolution used by VCAT is arbitration. Every hearing conducted by every ordinary and senior member is classed as arbitration under the Study Design, and the vast majority of matters are resolved in a hearing before an ordinary or senior member. VCAT has *some* mediation (mainly telephone mediation, eg in the Civil Claims List), but mediation is mainly used in more complicated cases (eg in the Supreme Court) to narrow down the issues in dispute before trial. VCAT has quite simple cases, so it would be a complete waste of time to mediate every dispute beforehand - one of the points of VCAT is that it has few to no pre-hearing procedures (such as mediation and conciliation) so you zoom straight to the hearing in just a few weeks.

Also, try to use the phrase 'non-judicial methods' for M, C and A - 'ADR' isn't a contemporary term, and doesn't have a lot of meaning now that courts use mediation and arbitration so heavily because they're no longer alternatives to court.