The role of mediation and ADR in Australian tribunals
⚖️ What is ADR in the Tribunal Context?
Common ADR Processes:
Mediation – A neutral third party helps the parties negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
Conciliation – Similar to mediation, but the neutral party may suggest terms.
Case conferences – Informal meetings facilitated by tribunal staff to narrow issues and promote settlement.
Neutral evaluation – An expert gives a non-binding opinion on the merits.
Arbitration – A binding decision is made by a neutral third party (less common in administrative tribunals).
⚙️ Legal Framework Supporting ADR in Tribunals
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – Allows the AAT to use ADR to resolve matters.
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Acts (state-based) – e.g., NCAT Act 2013 (NSW), QCAT Act 2009 (Qld).
Model Litigant Policy – Requires government agencies to consider ADR before litigation.
🎯 Objectives of ADR in Tribunals
Reduce cost and time of resolving disputes
Promote collaborative problem-solving
Encourage settlement without litigation
Preserve relationships between parties (especially in family or community settings)
Minimise formality and stress of legal proceedings
📚 Detailed Case Law Illustrating the Role of Mediation and ADR
Below are key cases that showcase how mediation and ADR are used or have influenced administrative justice in Australian tribunals:
1. Harding v Department of Social Security (1995) AATA 222
➤ Facts:
Harding disputed a social security decision and the matter was referred to ADR before a full hearing.
➤ Issue:
Could mediation assist in resolving factual disagreements and avoid a full tribunal hearing?
➤ Held:
The matter settled through conciliation, avoiding litigation. The AAT supported ADR as a tool to resolve disputes without delay.
➤ Significance:
Demonstrated the AAT's ability to resolve matters before formal hearing.
Endorsed ADR as flexible and user-friendly, especially in social services disputes.
2. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
➤ Facts:
Although not directly about mediation, this High Court case involved procedural fairness and expectations during administrative processes.
➤ Issue:
Could a promise of a hearing or ADR process, once made, create an obligation on administrators?
➤ Held:
While the case found that breach of a representation doesn't always breach fairness, it affirmed that expectations of process matter.
➤ Significance:
Emphasised importance of procedural fairness in dispute resolution, including ADR processes.
Relevance to ADR: tribunals must honour procedural commitments made in ADR contexts.
3. Handley v RailCorp (2010) NSWADT 218
➤ Facts:
A discrimination complaint was referred to conciliation through the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
➤ Issue:
Could the matter be resolved through non-adversarial processes rather than a full hearing?
➤ Held:
The matter settled through conciliation. The Tribunal endorsed ADR as a suitable method for resolving discrimination and human rights matters.
➤ Significance:
Shows ADR’s effectiveness in sensitive disputes such as those involving minority rights.
Preserved privacy and dignity of the parties, avoiding a public trial.
4. Green v State of Queensland (2001) QADT 28
➤ Facts:
Green brought a complaint under anti-discrimination laws. The QADT recommended ADR before proceeding.
➤ Issue:
Could tribunal-mandated conciliation resolve complex legal and factual issues?
➤ Held:
The matter was resolved without trial. The tribunal stressed that ADR is essential in fostering understanding and reconciliation.
➤ Significance:
Reinforced the use of ADR in equal opportunity and discrimination tribunals.
ADR supported not just resolution, but also emotional closure and restoration.
5. Wadham v New South Wales Police (2005) NSWADT 92
➤ Facts:
A public sector employment dispute involving allegations of unfair treatment was brought before the NSWADT.
➤ Issue:
Should the tribunal attempt conciliation before proceeding to formal adjudication?
➤ Held:
The tribunal found that ADR was particularly valuable in employment and administrative grievances, where continued interaction between parties was likely.
➤ Significance:
Highlighted how ADR preserves working relationships.
ADR was preferred to reduce costs and maintain professional conduct.
6. Re Michael Riley and Telstra Corporation Ltd (1994) AATA 138
➤ Facts:
Riley challenged a compensation-related decision. The AAT ordered a pre-hearing conference (an early form of ADR).
➤ Issue:
Was it appropriate to use pre-hearing ADR to limit issues and encourage resolution?
➤ Held:
Yes. The conference narrowed the issues and encouraged settlement on several points, leading to efficient resolution.
➤ Significance:
Early use of ADR techniques like case conferencing was validated.
Showed how tribunals can use ADR to clarify issues and avoid unnecessary litigation.
🔍 Comparative Features of ADR in Tribunals
| Feature | ADR (e.g., Mediation/Conciliation) | Formal Hearing |
|---|---|---|
| Time and cost | Low | High |
| Form of process | Informal and collaborative | Formal and adversarial |
| Outcome | Mutually agreed settlement | Tribunal-imposed decision |
| Confidentiality | High | Public (in most cases) |
| Emotional impact | Less stressful | Potentially high-stress |
| Preserving relationships | Strong focus | Often strained |
⚖️ Role of Tribunals in Facilitating ADR
Australian tribunals often:
Mandate ADR as the first step before hearing
Appoint trained ADR facilitators (often tribunal members or external professionals)
Use ADR to narrow the scope of hearings even if a full resolution is not reached
Provide guidelines and rules under tribunal acts to structure ADR
🧠 Conclusion
The growing use of mediation and ADR in Australian tribunals reflects a move towards a more accessible, less adversarial model of administrative justice. Whether dealing with social security, discrimination, immigration, employment, or consumer rights, tribunals increasingly use ADR to deliver timely, fair, and effective outcomes.
These case studies illustrate how ADR protects rights, reduces litigation burdens, and upholds the values of fairness, participation, and efficiency central to modern administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments