A critical analysis of the inefficacy of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in South Africa – lessons from Nigeria

As a result of defects in the South African civil justice system, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development introduced voluntary court-annexed mediation (CAM) in the magistrates’ courts in 2014. CAM was chosen under the broader need for greater access to justice because it has the potential to make dispute resolution efficient, amicable, and affordable. It can, therefore, contribute to access to justice for all members of society. Since the amendment of the Magistrates’ Court Rules to provide for CAM, the uptake of mediation in terms of the CAM system has unfortunately been inadequate. The aim of this article is to identify reasons for the inefficacy of CAM since its implementation. We use normative research to critically analyse existing court rules and authority. We conclude that there are several reasons for CAM’s inefficacy which are elucidated in the main text. It is important to understand these reasons, as the legislature presents CAM as a mechanism to improve access to justice. From this platform, we evaluate the mechanisms for court-connected alternative dispute resolutions provided by the Nigerian Multi-Door Courthouse (MDC) system. This reveals policies and practices that could potentially improve the efficacy of CAM in South Africa, as these relate to the factors identified as impediments to the optimal functioning of CAM in our civil justice system. As such, we identify valuable lessons that can be learned from this comparison. Building hereon, and on the conclusions reached elsewhere in the article, we postulate that the mediation scheme, as contemplated by Rule 41A of the Uniform Rules of Court (as applied in the superior courts), should also be implemented in the magistrates’ courts. The article concludes that improving CAM in South Africa is of critical importance to advancing access to justice and departing from a culture of conventional adversarial dispute resolution.

The Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in the US Civil Court System

Introduction: in the era of the active introduction of digital technologies, more and more processes are being automated and smart machines are taking over the work of people. Even at the end of the 20th century, automatic spell-checking and search engines were perceived by many as “highly intelligent” information technologies. Currently, such processes have become completely trivial for most people and have given way to more advanced technologies. The intelligent face recognition systems installed in public places and airports allow you to verify a person’s identity, as well as assist in the capture of criminals. The smart assistants in mobile devices, for example, Google Maps, provide additional information about the destination (working hours, the name of the organization). However, there is more and more debate about the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies in the judicial process. Many experts in the field of information and communication technologies, as well as practicing lawyers, argue that thanks to the accumulated experience and judicial practice, it is possible to predict and make court decisions based on certain algorithms for certain categories of cases. This practice already exists in the system of alternative settlement of civil disputes. The first such decision was made by a robot mediator back in 2019 in the High Court of England and Wales. To resolve the dispute, the Smartsettle ONE system developed by the Canadian company iCan Systems was used. The use of artificial intelligence technology allowed resolving the dispute between the parties and coming to an agreement in less than an hour. The legislator approaches the issues of the introduction of artificial intelligence technology in the system of state courts more carefully. However, court cases do not always require a comprehensive individual approach to decision-making and many cases can be processed automatically, at least, partially. In this regard, it seems appropriate to explore in the paper the main opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence through the example of the civil justice system of the United States of America. The purpose of the study is achieved by answering several questions: how can artificial intelligence be useful for courts? What mechanisms of the justice system need to be improved for the effective operation of artificial intelligence systems? What forms of artificial intelligence exist in the US civil court system? How can courts and judges work with artificial intelligence under the standards of a fair procedure for considering civil disputes? The methodology is based on a theoretical approach to the study of the most commonly used artificial intelligence technologies in the US civil justice system, as well as a number of national laws and other regulations. Based on the analysis of the theoretical data obtained, in the paper, the author analyzes the current trends and mechanisms for resolving civil disputes using artificial intelligence systems and also highlights some related problems. The results of the research can be used in determining the key goals and objectives of a procedural nature, improving the functioning of judicial and non-judicial organizations, law enforcement, research activities, as well as in teaching activities, in particular, during lectures and seminars on courses of private international law and civil procedure. Conclusions: increasing the level of awareness of participants in civil law disputes about current trends and tools for the administration of justice contributes to the development of the institution of civil proceedings, as well as contributes to increasing transparency and increasing the degree of trust of citizens in the judicial system as a whole.

Designing mediation for Scottish Civil Courts: Options and opportunity

In this article, the author examines whether the dispute resolution processes proposed in 2019 for civil courts in Scotland are suitable for the context of civil justice in Scotland in 2020 and the future. They are measured according to the policy context, what is known about the purposes of litigation, dispute system design and the needs and cultures of an adversarial civil justice system currently grappling with the impact of coronavirus restrictions.

The Federal Arbitration Act in Its Infancy

Julius Henry Cohen, the principal drafter of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), together with Kenneth Dayton, another lawyer who worked at Cohen’s firm, published a landmark article announcing the FAA’s enactment in February 1926, one month after the FAA’s effective date. An interesting history surrounds the writing of the article, which stands as a milestone in the field of arbitration law for several reasons, including: its introduction and justification of a statute that has had a far-reaching impact on America’s civil justice system; its contextualization of the FAA; its acknowledgment of concerns regarding the FAA; and its recognition that private parties should promote arbitration. The article is significant for celebrating the birth of a landmark statute and capturing a small snapshot of the rich legal history of the FAA. Also, in retrospect, the article has taken on a new meaning and serves as a reminder that the FAA, now almost one hundred years old, needs reform....

The English Legal System

The English Legal System presents the main areas of the legal system and encourages a critique of the wider aspects of how law is made and reformed. The book is structured in five parts. Part I looks at the sources of law including domestic and international sources. Part II looks at the courts and the practitioners. It considers the structure of the courts and tribunals, judges and judicial independence, the legal professions, and legal aid. Part III examines the criminal justice system. It describes issues related to lay justice, trials, and criminal appeals. The next part is about the civil justice system. It looks at civil litigation, remedies, appeals and alternative dispute resolution, as well as the funding of civil litigation. The final part looks to the future.

8. The civil and commercial justice systems

This chapter discusses the civil and commercial justice systems. It considers the purpose of the civil justice system and also covers the use of alternative dispute resolution and the incentives to keep disputes out of the court. It looks at the court structure, the county court, the High Court, the newly created Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, and other courts and offices. It considers possible changes that may result from the Transformation programme and the civil and commercial justice systems’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also considers routes of appeal and the work of the appeal courts.

The Civil Justice Reform Debate

Civil justice comprises the entire system of the administration of justice in civil matters. One significant discourse concerning the civil justice system in the last three decades is reform. This is due to various controversies around the subject resulting in crises. African approaches to civil justice jurisprudence encompass a variety of theoretical and normative elements that shape the way Africans conceive justice delivery. Over the years of the reform debate, not enough light has been shed on this to explain the existence of such perspective. It is argued that the African position to civil justice in the current reforms debate must not be pinned to just the doctrinal option imbedded in statutes but also be based on methods and procedures nurtured on the soil of Africa that align with the practical needs of the people encompassing social, political, cultural, and religious values. The chapter concludes that the African system of justice delivery is largely mirrored in the Ghanaian experience to justice system in civil jurisprudence.

The Ragged Edge of Rugged Individualism: Wage Theft and the Personalization of Social Harm

Every year, millions of low-wage workers suffer wage theft when their employers refuse to pay them what they have earned. Wage theft is both prevalent and highly impactful. It costs individuals thousands each year in unpaid earnings, siphons tens of billions of dollars from low-income communities, depletes the government of necessary resources, distorts the competitive labor market, and causes significant personal harm to its victims. In recent years, states and cities have passed new laws to attack the problem. These legal changes are important. They are also, broadly speaking, failing the people they are supposed to protect. This Article fills a significant gap in the literature by detailing the full scope of damage caused by wage theft and by critically examining the dominant approach to combatting it. Drawing on existing research and nearly 60 in-depth interviews about wage theft in the District of Columbia, this Article paints a thorough picture of wage theft’s harms, explores why and how existing reforms are failing, and explains what must be done instead. Enforcement schemes reflect the current view that wage theft is a personal harm properly addressed on a case-by-case basis in the civil justice system. As a result, reforms—both as written and implemented—generally attempt to empower and incentivize individuals to action. These approaches are failing. They misunderstand what wage theft is, how it plays out, and how it must be addressed. Wage theft is not an individual problem, but a social harm, and it therefore requires a broad, public response. Because low-wage workers live economically precarious lives and are so dependent on their jobs to survive, they almost never take formal legal action over violations of their rights. Government bodies cannot continue to rely on workers themselves to enforce their rights, but must take on a new role as robust, active, and strategic enforcers. Unless and until they do, millions of people will continue to suffer violations of their basic workplace rights with no meaningful recourse.

Epilogue

This chapter reviews letters about what have been happening in America over the past sixty years as the Ivory Tower slowly erodes. It elaborates the importance of language in the early 1960s for the understanding of kinship and court users in a bilingual town and for any sophisticated understanding of the style of court proceedings, which is later dubbed as “harmony ideology.” It also discusses the author's interest in Zapotec law that expanded to a comparative interest in dispute resolution movements worldwide after the demise of colonialism and the founding of new states. The chapter describes the movement in the United States to address the failings of the civil justice system. It talks about the push to change the civil justice system in the United States that is referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is a political movement against the social justice movements of the 1960s.

The Civil Procedure Rules Twenty Years On

Cost and delay have always been the two great challenges facing the civil justice system. Lord Woolf sought to address these issues with his recommendations, which were largely implemented in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) twenty years ago. Lord Justice Jackson again took up the challenge in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs ten years later, leading to further significant reforms. But the reform process is far from over, with the rules on disclosure and witness statements currently in the spotlight. This chapter considers how the CPR and the various reforms have worked in practice from the perspective of the commercial solicitor, and whether more needs to be done to address the challenges.