Re-assessment of QCAT'S hybrid hearing and arb-med-arb under s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article examines two developments in dispute resolution practice in Queensland, the "hybrid hearing" established by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the procedure contemplated by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). In each case, elements of adjudication and mediation have been combined to form a "hybrid" procedure which, if taken through to its conclusion, results in a process known as "arb-med-arb". Critics of these provisions argue that the resulting process may be a whole which is less than the sum of its parts. In particular, it is claimed that mediation may be compromised. The author is one such critic. In this article, the author reassesses QCAT's hybrid hearing and the arb-med-arb procedure envisaged by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act using principles of dispute systems design, as well as those derived from research on procedural justice. The author concludes that there may be reason for optimism about these processes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)156-170
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Civil Litigation and Practice
Volume3
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

arbitration
act
mediation
critic
optimism
justice

Cite this

@article{b80463fdfb7642d3a89de796d8c40e03,
title = "Re-assessment of QCAT'S hybrid hearing and arb-med-arb under s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act",
abstract = "This article examines two developments in dispute resolution practice in Queensland, the {"}hybrid hearing{"} established by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the procedure contemplated by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). In each case, elements of adjudication and mediation have been combined to form a {"}hybrid{"} procedure which, if taken through to its conclusion, results in a process known as {"}arb-med-arb{"}. Critics of these provisions argue that the resulting process may be a whole which is less than the sum of its parts. In particular, it is claimed that mediation may be compromised. The author is one such critic. In this article, the author reassesses QCAT's hybrid hearing and the arb-med-arb procedure envisaged by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act using principles of dispute systems design, as well as those derived from research on procedural justice. The author concludes that there may be reason for optimism about these processes.",
author = "B Wolski",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "156--170",
journal = "Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice",
issn = "1839-4574",
number = "4",

}

Re-assessment of QCAT'S hybrid hearing and arb-med-arb under s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act. / Wolski, B.

In: Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2014, p. 156-170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-assessment of QCAT'S hybrid hearing and arb-med-arb under s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act

AU - Wolski, B

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This article examines two developments in dispute resolution practice in Queensland, the "hybrid hearing" established by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the procedure contemplated by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). In each case, elements of adjudication and mediation have been combined to form a "hybrid" procedure which, if taken through to its conclusion, results in a process known as "arb-med-arb". Critics of these provisions argue that the resulting process may be a whole which is less than the sum of its parts. In particular, it is claimed that mediation may be compromised. The author is one such critic. In this article, the author reassesses QCAT's hybrid hearing and the arb-med-arb procedure envisaged by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act using principles of dispute systems design, as well as those derived from research on procedural justice. The author concludes that there may be reason for optimism about these processes.

AB - This article examines two developments in dispute resolution practice in Queensland, the "hybrid hearing" established by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the procedure contemplated by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld). In each case, elements of adjudication and mediation have been combined to form a "hybrid" procedure which, if taken through to its conclusion, results in a process known as "arb-med-arb". Critics of these provisions argue that the resulting process may be a whole which is less than the sum of its parts. In particular, it is claimed that mediation may be compromised. The author is one such critic. In this article, the author reassesses QCAT's hybrid hearing and the arb-med-arb procedure envisaged by s 27D of the Commercial Arbitration Act using principles of dispute systems design, as well as those derived from research on procedural justice. The author concludes that there may be reason for optimism about these processes.

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 156

EP - 170

JO - Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice

JF - Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice

SN - 1839-4574

IS - 4

ER -