In light of the meaning of the ADR gave over, the ADR’s lawful nature and considering the restricted edges of this paper we can quickly feature the accompanying ADR attributes that are vital and regular for a wide range of elective ADR methods. They additionally can be considered as focal points of the ADR:· Confidential manner unless in any other case agreed with the aid of the parties, that aimed at facilitating the settlement of a dispute between the parties (90 % of the disputes taken into consideration under the ADR have been successfully resolved).We incline to assume that one of the motives for such statistics can be the broad problem definition presumed within the ADR method which is contrary to the management of justice with the narrow problem definition. This means that the events cognizance now not only at lawful grounds but at different particularities of the case as nicely;· The parties work in a good belief in reaching an agreement with a sovereign agreement and follow their true intent, however, with the help of a goal and expert impartial party, who frequently does no longer assess the dispute. Even though may be asked to present his/her non-binding opinion at the dispute in query;· Usually, the process takes itself shortly and consequently reduces the cost of a low cost compared to the trial / arbitrator.
· The parties mostly refer to the interests and needs rather than the rights and responsibilities. It is as follows: The agreement is generally in accordance with the parties considering a particular dispute and similar disputes can be settled differently with different ADR techniques. If the solution is valid for the parties, its sanity is an optional issue, In other words, parties make their own rule. It is worth mentioning that the compromise between the parties can also be uncertain. · Parties do not limit themselves by the procedural rules as it appears during the litigation process. Therefore, such principle as equality and burden of proof that is inherent to the administration of justice does not need to be followed in the ADR process.
In the ADR process parties attempt to resolve a dispute with “win-win” outcome. · Responsibility for the outcome of the ADR process lies on the parties only due to the fact that it is the parties who make the final decision on conditions of the settlement agreement, even when the neutral party provides his/her opinion on the issues within the ADR process. Moreover, a neutral person is not a party to such agreement. However, if a neutral person is a lawyer then it is presumed that the neutral will not participate in the dispute settlement that somehow may have constituent elements of a criminal offence or a breach of mandatory public law obligations.
Some scholars suppose that liability of a neutral party can have place in case of gross negligence.