Will ADR be able to impact on access to justice and litigation costs?

The purpose of the court is to resolve dispute through a legal process to ensure justice within the courtroom, or, rendering all possible assistance to litigants in all cases on their dockets- are the few basics had been told thousands time but yet to be resolved. The shortcomings of the courts in timely disposing of cases have stimulated the growth of alternatives to the traditional court-based litigation process. However, it has been also seeking out that whether access to justice could be ensured through privatizing the court proceeding as the mediators may not be concerned about substantive justice rather focused on settling their dispute. Due to the growing costs of litigation and delays in the court proceedings, ADR is being encouraged amongst the litigants. Even it has been considering as the first port over ordinary court proceedings especially for the civil, family and commercial disputes through the whole world. It is sought to be popular as it offers the other options than the winner takes all outcomes that characterise the judicial process. Moreover, it is apparent that ADR is saving time and money of the litigants. The wealth disparity of the parties to the litigation may put at risk of mandatory mediation for the weaker parties. The UK courts are now imposing a future threat of financial penalty upon the parties who refuse to mediate that raises the argument that ADR has been antipathetic to the commitment of equal access to justice. A successful ADR may reduce the time of litigation whether an unsuccessful one will lead to additional cost in the proceedings. This paper will examine does ADR impact on access to justice? Finally, how litigation expense could be reduced using the ADR system in an appropriate case and time through diagnosing dispute or conflict.