Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/139865
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | Le Mire, Suzanne | - |
dc.contributor.advisor | Olijnyk, Anna | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kassapidis, Peter | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2440/139865 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Debates, dichotomies, and distinctions exist within the literature and amongst ADR practitioners, regarding mediation’s varying purposes, diversity in practices and variety of procedures. This research explores these three themes, using the Magistrates Court of South Australia (‘the Court’) as a case study. There are four principal actors who are involved, either directly or indirectly, in mediation within the Court: magistrates, lawyers, mediators and disputants. I refer to three of the four principal actors – magistrates, lawyers and mediators – collectively as ‘Stakeholders’. I examine data from semi-structured interviews with five magistrates, seven lawyers and 16 mediators regarding their understandings, expectations, and experiences of mediation’s purpose, practice and procedure. The research identifies the main areas of convergence and divergence between Stakeholders and shows that expectation gaps exist between them regarding the three themes. I examine prominent expectation gaps and make recommendations to address them. | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.subject | Court-connected mediation | en |
dc.subject | Alternative dispute resolution | en |
dc.subject | ADR | en |
dc.subject | DR categories | en |
dc.subject | facilitative mediation | en |
dc.subject | conciliation | en |
dc.subject | Magistrates Court of South Australia | en |
dc.subject | Magistrates Court Civil Rules | en |
dc.subject | Uniform Civil Rules | en |
dc.title | Mediation perspectives from the Bench, Bar And Mediation Table in a Magistrates Court — Finding Common Ground and Bridging Gaps | en |
dc.type | Thesis | en |
dc.contributor.school | Adelaide Law School | en |
dc.provenance | This electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals | en |
dc.description.dissertation | Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Law, 2023 | en |
Appears in Collections: | Research Theses |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kassapidis2023_PhD.pdf | 4.17 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.