QCAT's hybrid hearing: The best of both worlds or compromised mediation?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Mediation has been an essential component of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's dispute resolution system since the tribunal was established in 2009. It usually takes place before a matter is listed for hearing. In September 2012, QCAT introduced a "hybrid hearing" which incorporates mediation after the hearing but before a decision is handed down. In so doing, QCAT created a second ADR pathway. This article compares the hybrid hearing pathway with the ADR-hearing pathway. The article also compares the hybrid hearing to a number of other processes which combine elements of mediation and adjudication. The rationale for the creation of these processes is explored. In QCAT's case, the rationale is shaky. Although hybrid dispute resolution processes may have the capacity to provide "the best of both worlds", in the author's opinion, QCAT has unduly compromised the mediation experience of parties who are directed to a hybrid hearing. The article also raises a number of issues which have yet to be addressed by QCAT.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-167
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Judicial Administration
Volume22
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

mediation
experience

Cite this

@article{87bf4ed2182f4921886775864a23c21f,
title = "QCAT's hybrid hearing: The best of both worlds or compromised mediation?",
abstract = "Mediation has been an essential component of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's dispute resolution system since the tribunal was established in 2009. It usually takes place before a matter is listed for hearing. In September 2012, QCAT introduced a {"}hybrid hearing{"} which incorporates mediation after the hearing but before a decision is handed down. In so doing, QCAT created a second ADR pathway. This article compares the hybrid hearing pathway with the ADR-hearing pathway. The article also compares the hybrid hearing to a number of other processes which combine elements of mediation and adjudication. The rationale for the creation of these processes is explored. In QCAT's case, the rationale is shaky. Although hybrid dispute resolution processes may have the capacity to provide {"}the best of both worlds{"}, in the author's opinion, QCAT has unduly compromised the mediation experience of parties who are directed to a hybrid hearing. The article also raises a number of issues which have yet to be addressed by QCAT.",
author = "B Wolski",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "154--167",
journal = "Journal of Judicial Administration",
issn = "1036-7918",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "3",

}

QCAT's hybrid hearing : The best of both worlds or compromised mediation? / Wolski, B.

In: Journal of Judicial Administration, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2013, p. 154-167.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - QCAT's hybrid hearing

T2 - The best of both worlds or compromised mediation?

AU - Wolski, B

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Mediation has been an essential component of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's dispute resolution system since the tribunal was established in 2009. It usually takes place before a matter is listed for hearing. In September 2012, QCAT introduced a "hybrid hearing" which incorporates mediation after the hearing but before a decision is handed down. In so doing, QCAT created a second ADR pathway. This article compares the hybrid hearing pathway with the ADR-hearing pathway. The article also compares the hybrid hearing to a number of other processes which combine elements of mediation and adjudication. The rationale for the creation of these processes is explored. In QCAT's case, the rationale is shaky. Although hybrid dispute resolution processes may have the capacity to provide "the best of both worlds", in the author's opinion, QCAT has unduly compromised the mediation experience of parties who are directed to a hybrid hearing. The article also raises a number of issues which have yet to be addressed by QCAT.

AB - Mediation has been an essential component of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal's dispute resolution system since the tribunal was established in 2009. It usually takes place before a matter is listed for hearing. In September 2012, QCAT introduced a "hybrid hearing" which incorporates mediation after the hearing but before a decision is handed down. In so doing, QCAT created a second ADR pathway. This article compares the hybrid hearing pathway with the ADR-hearing pathway. The article also compares the hybrid hearing to a number of other processes which combine elements of mediation and adjudication. The rationale for the creation of these processes is explored. In QCAT's case, the rationale is shaky. Although hybrid dispute resolution processes may have the capacity to provide "the best of both worlds", in the author's opinion, QCAT has unduly compromised the mediation experience of parties who are directed to a hybrid hearing. The article also raises a number of issues which have yet to be addressed by QCAT.

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 154

EP - 167

JO - Journal of Judicial Administration

JF - Journal of Judicial Administration

SN - 1036-7918

IS - 3

ER -