Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Education in Australia: Perspectives from the Bench

McWilliam, N; Tridgell, J; Bell, H

Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Education in Australia: Perspectives from the Bench

McWilliam, N

Tridgell, J Bell, H

Permalink

Publisher:: Thomson Reuters
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Australian Law Journal, 2019, 93 (11), pp. 938 - 950
Issue Date:: 2019-11

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Education in Australia Perspectives from the Bench.pdf	Published Version	99.75 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	McWilliam, N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-2349	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Tridgell, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bell, H	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-11	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australian Law Journal, 2019, 93 (11), pp. 938 - 950	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0004-9611	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/137739
dc.description.abstract	Drawing upon a study examining the perspectives of 104 Australian judges (including magistrates), this article explores judges' perceptions of their understanding and education of Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR). While CADR is increasingly recognised as part of a judge's role, levels of formal alternative dispute resolution training are low in Australia. Nevertheless, judges frequently learn about CADR processes in other ways, particularly practical experience in their legal careers before and after their appointment to the Bench. Judicial perspectives on the level of understanding required and the relevance of CADR often vary depending on cultural and other factors, including court level and type of matters. These factors significantly influence judicial engagement with CADR and, consequently, their knowledge and experience of CADR. By listening to judicial perspectives on CADR education, whether its successes or shortfalls, the Australian judicial system can effectively shape CADR policy in the future.	en_US
dc.publisher	Thomson Reuters	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Law Journal	en_US
dc.title	Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Education in Australia: Perspectives from the Bench	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	11	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	93	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	11	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	93	en_US

Abstract:

Drawing upon a study examining the perspectives of 104 Australian judges (including magistrates), this article explores judges' perceptions of their understanding and education of Court-Referred Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR). While CADR is increasingly recognised as part of a judge's role, levels of formal alternative dispute resolution training are low in Australia. Nevertheless, judges frequently learn about CADR processes in other ways, particularly practical experience in their legal careers before and after their appointment to the Bench. Judicial perspectives on the level of understanding required and the relevance of CADR often vary depending on cultural and other factors, including court level and type of matters. These factors significantly influence judicial engagement with CADR and, consequently, their knowledge and experience of CADR. By listening to judicial perspectives on CADR education, whether its successes or shortfalls, the Australian judicial system can effectively shape CADR policy in the future.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/137739