1. Read the text. Judicial Institutions (Courts)

In all legal systems there are institutions for creating, modifying, abolishing and applying the law. Usually these take the form of a hierarchy of courts. The role of each court and its capacity to make decisions is strictly defined in relation to the courts. There are two main reasons for having a variety of courts. One is that a particular court can specialize in a particular kind of legal action. The other is so that a person who feels his case was not fairly treated in a lower court can appeal to a higher court for reassessment. The decisions of a higher court are binding upon lower courts. At the top of the hierarchy is a supreme law-making body.

The court in which a case is first heard is called the court of first instance. Appellate courts (or Appeal Courts) are civil or crime courts to which a person may go for a reconsideration of the deci­sion of the original court.

The formal courts are not the only means of solving disputes; adjudication increasingly takes place outside the court system. The two main forms of extra-court adjudication are tribunals and arbitration. Tribunals were established to adjudicate on disputes arising out of social legislation which regulates such areas as employment, housing and social security benefits.

The disputes in these areas might be settled by ordinary courts but the ordinary courts lack the necessary expertise or are too formal, slow and costly. Hence, the legislation has established a tribunal to do the job. There are numerous types of tribunals, each with its own limited jurisdiction over a particular type of claim. Many tribunals have expert assessors¹ sitting along a legally experienced chairman to make up the judging panel². From the point of view of the ordinary citizens they are the most important courts in the country but from the point of view of lawyers they are perhaps the least important element in the court system of England.

In contrast, arbitration is a private means of adjudication, arranged and agreed between parties involved. Here the parties agree to place their dispute in the hands of an independent third party and invest the arbitrator with the power to decide the issue. The arbitrator is likely to be someone with expertise in the area. The purpose of arbitration is to enable people to have small disputes resolved in an informal atmosphere, avoiding as far as possible the strict rules of procedure usually associated with court proceedings. This does not mean that rules are not observed because the object of all court procedures is to protect the interests of each party to the action and to ensure that the case is tried fairly. Nevertheless, the formalities are kept to the minimum.

The advantages of arbitration are similar to those of tribunals: speed, lower costs, flexibility, informality and adjudication by an expert. These advantages must, of course, be balanced against disadvantages. There is the argument that cheaper, quicker and less formal hearings result in a poor quality service. Nevertheless, the increasing use of tribunals and arbitration seems to indicate that they are a popular way of resolving disputes. On a wider point, they also increase access to justice for the ordinary people who make up 38 per cent of the plaintiffs.

Notes to the Text

1. expert assessor — эксперт-консультант

2. judging panel — состав, список судей