Tribunals and Alternative Dispute Resolution

1. Tribunals and Alternative Dispute Resolution Topic 11

2. Attorney-General’s Department: 2014 website Ways to manage a dispute There are many ways you can respond to a dispute. These can include: • deciding if you can live with things staying the way they are • talking with the other people involved to see if you can find an outcome that works for everyone (sometimes called ‘negotiating’)

3. getting help from an organisation or a person who is not involved in the dispute, such as: • an alternative dispute resolution practitioner, for example, a mediator • a lawyer or other person who may negotiate for you, or provide advice on your legal rights • a person trusted by everyone involved in the dispute • an ombudsman • a court or tribunal

4. When choosing the best dispute resolution process for you, it is useful to think about: • how the other people involved might want to manage the dispute • whether you want an independent person involved and, if you do, what you want them to do • how structured you want the dispute resolution process to be • what sort of relationship you want to have with the other people involved

5. how much you are prepared to spend—in time and money • how much control you want over the process • how much control you want over making a decision or agreement.

7. Courts Legal assistance External merits review Legal services Better decision-making ADR Legal assistance – ADR EDR Legal assistance – early intervention Access to information Resilience Handling matters personally Formal justice Informal justice Everyday justice Number of disputes

11. Tribunals • Courts • Judicial review • Was the decision lawfully made • Tribunals • Merits review • Was the decision a good decision?

12. Merits review • What is it? • What are the objectives of it? • The nature of merits review: * Recommendatory * Stand in shoes of primary decision maker * Hearing de novo * Correct or/and preferable decision

13. Judicial review v merits review A blurred distinction

14. Why have merits review and does it work? • * Administrative law remedies improve the whole system of government decision making by increasing its openness and transparency and providing feedback on its performance. Confident executive government should welcome this kind of audit. * Accountability is fundamental to good governance in modern, open societies.

15. Administrative Appeals Tribunal • Unique in the common law world • General tribunal for the review of administrative decisions • 87 members with the jurisdiction to review administrative decisions made under more than 450 Acts of Parliament • Appeals lie to the Federal Court

16. Applying to the AAT

17. If you disagree with a decision of a Commonwealth Minister, a • Government Department or agency, or an employee of a Department which affects you, • you may be able to have it reviewed. The AAT has powers to review decisions • made under certain Acts of Parliament. • The sorts of decision which can be reviewed include decisions about: • a social security pension or a benefit • a veteran's pension • Commonwealth workers' compensation • an environmental issue • taxation • visas refused or cancelled on character grounds • ABN cancellation • Disability care under the National Disability Insurance Scheme • many other Commonwealth issues • .

18. AAT within the portfolio of the Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts Senator the Hon George Brandis QC

19. Drake v Minister for Immigrationand Ethnic Affairs(1979) 24 ALR 577 at 589 per Bowen CJ and Deane J: “The question for the determination of the Tribunal is not whether the decision which the decision maker made was the correct or preferable one on the material before him. The question for the determination of the Tribunal is whether that decision was the correct or preferable one on the material before the Tribunal.”

20. Federal Judicial Review • Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) • Federal Court • Appeals from AAT – but not merits review • s75(v) Constitution – High Court jurisdiction

21. AAT President The Honorable Duncan Kerr SC Chev LH, a Senior Counsel, is the ‘new’ President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal(announced April 2012)

22. A super NSW tribunal

23. NSW Tribunals NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal • Commenced on 1 January 2014 • Replaces 22 of the State’s existing tribunals (eg: Matters heard previously in the Consumer Trade and Tenancy Tribunal and now heard in the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT) • Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment Act 2013

24. President • The Hon Justice Robertson Wright

25. NCAT • “one-stop-shop for specialist tribunal services in NSW”

26. Structure

27. The main work of NCAT is to review specific administrative decisions made by NSW government agencies • Across all types of matters, NCAT is committed to: • timely, fair, high-quality decision-making • maintaining current levels of service • retaining specialist expertise and services • continuous improvement in service delivery

28. Previously the ADT: Formal and informal hearing rooms (old website)

29. Next website

30. Current AAT website

31. NCAT website

32. ADT – Now replaced: The creation of the ADT made it the first tribunal in New South Wales with a divergent, multijurisdictional character…. While some existing State tribunals were merged into the new ADT, the Attorney noted that as many as 21 State tribunals remained outside its structure. He referred to the values served by consolidation: greater coherence for the public, greater transparency and professionalism, greater ability to introduce good procedures and practices, better use of public resources, avoidance of duplication of similar structures, and the avoidance of perception of conflict of interest where the portfolio department has a substantial involvement in proceedings in a portfolio tribunal. Annual Report, 2007-2008, p6

33. At common law, administrators do not have to give reasons for their decisions regardless of how significant or damaging they may be for the individual. The ADT legislation modified that rule. Administrators were now obliged to give reasons for those decisions made reviewable before the ADT. In the second reading speech the Attorney expressed a broad view as to the administrative decisions that citizens could look forward to seeing reviewed by the ADT. As it has transpired a much narrower range of decisions has been made reviewable. Giving affected persons a right to seek external review remains a choice, in the first instance, for the various portfolios of Government and, ultimately, Cabinet. So far as I am aware, there is no transparent discipline or policy governing the matter…..There have been some instances where the review jurisdiction has been removed or reduced by amending legislation, without any public explanation, soon after decisions have gone against an agency. 10 year anniversary of the ADT: Annual Report 2007-2008 p 5

34. As at the end of the current year, the average time from filing to disposal of primary applications in the Tribunal was 0.65 of a year (i.e. 7.8 months). The average time from filing to disposal in the case of an appeal was 0.55 of a year (i.e. 6.7 months). The collective average was 0.64 (i.e. 7.7 months). There has been a decline in the speed of disposal, as compared to five years ago, when the figures were 0.54 for primary applications, 0.31 for appeals, and collectively 0.52 (i.e. 6.3 months). The collective average has now been slowing incrementally each year. The Divisional Heads have been asked to suggest ways in which the turnaround time can be improved.” ADT Annual Report 2007-2008

35. Alternative Dispute Resolution

36. ADR • Litigation has been the traditional focus of dispute resolution, but often not the only appropriate form of dispute resolution • ‘Alternative’ forms of dispute resolution becoming increasingly important • Both Courts (s71) and ADR methods such as conciliation and arbitration (s51(xxxv)) recognised in Constitution

37. ADR same as Court? • ADR not just a different type of court • Court: exercises the judicial power of the State • Tribunal: exercises executive (and sometimes judicial) power of the State • ADR: may be voluntary/may be binding – depends on agreement between parties • ADR: often a private contractual arrangement

38. ADR • “Alternative” – can convey these dispute resolution methods are of secondary importance • Additional? • Litigation alternative to ‘traditional’ mortal combat? • “Dispute resolution” as a range of options (including litigation) – select most appropriate to circumstances and client

39. ADR won’t suit all situations

40. ADR: tactics and strategy

41. Types of ADR • Negotiation • Mediation • Neutral Evaluation • Conciliation • Expert Referral • Arbitration

42. Negotiation • Conflict of interests between parties • No established rules to resolve conflict • Parties are seeking agreement • May or may not involve third party • Mediation • Generally involves the use of a trained, neutral third party • Process – oriented: mediator facilitates • Substance – oriented: mediator offers recommendations

43. Neutral evaluation • Neutral evaluator seeks to identify and reduce the issues of fact and law which are in dispute • Offers opinion as to likely outcome of dispute • Similar to a mini-trial • Conciliation • Parties, with the assistance of neutral conciliator, identify issues and develop options and alternatives • Conciliator advises but does not determine

44. Expert referral • Usually established by legislation • Expert panels used by State courts and tribunals • Arbitration • Formal dispute resolution process governed by Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) or equivalents • Binding determination • Also industrial arbitration

45. ADR - definitions • Accurate, comprehensive definitions can be difficult • National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council – NADRAC • “processes, other than judicial determination, in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them.”

46. NADRAC definitions • Facilitative processes: an ADR practitioner assists the parties to a dispute to identify the disputed issues, develop options, consider alternatives and endeavour to reach an agreement about some issues or the whole dispute. E.g. mediation, facilitation and facilitated negotiation. • Advisory processes: an ADR practitioner considers and appraises the dispute and provides advice as to the facts of the dispute, the law, and in some cases, possible or desirable outcomes and how these may be achieved. E.g. expert appraisal, case appraisal, case presentation, mini-trial and early neutral evaluation.

47. NADRAC definitions • Determinative processes: ADR practitioner evaluates the dispute and makes a determination. E.g. arbitration, expert determination and private judging. • Combined or hybrid processes: ADR practitioner may play multiple roles. E.g. in conciliation and in conferencing, the ADR practitioner may facilitate discussions, as well as provide advice on the merits of the dispute. In hybrid processes, such as med-arb, the practitioner first uses one process (mediation) and then a different one (arbitration).

48. Why ADR? • Benefits for clients • Cost – usually cheaper • Time – usually faster • Relationships – can be preserved. Consider the effect of litigation on relationships. Court system always adversarial. • Benefits for courts • Pre-trial/case management processes reduce workload of court • Reduces costs and delays across the system

49. Why ADR? • Promoted by government as best practice • Commonwealth Legal Services Directions 2005 • ‘model litigants’ - endeavour to avoid, prevent and limit the scope of litigation wherever possible. • Professional obligation? • Should be able to advise clients about all options and best options.

50. Why ADR? • Effective in achieving lasting settlement of disputes • Parties actively engaged • Avoids ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ • ALRC report: “70.6% of the mediation agreements with monetary settlement were reported to be paid in full, compared to 33.8% of the adjudications.”