FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W10706472> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W10706472 abstract "Cicero asserted in De Legibus some two thousand years ago that the good of the people should be the chieflaw. The people's own view of what is good for them has not always figured in the dispute resolution process designed for their benefit. The inherited English system of litigation offered to Australian colonists in the nineteenthcentury had already attracted universal condemnation from commentators such as Tennyson who spoke of the brawling courts and dusty purlieus of the law. The history of the settlement of financial disputes under Australian family law has primarily been the history of litigation in its dominant role as a dispute resolution process and traditionally there have been few formal opportunities created and sponsored by the Courts themselves for litigants or other disputing couples to try tonegotiate a settlement of their dispute on their own terms and to their satisfaction.The passing of the Family Law Act in 1975 and the creation of the Family Court of Australia represented a new legislative vision for a Court dealing with humanrelationships. It was radical because it proposed facilitation of processes within which people could reach solutions compatible with their dignity, with limited judicial intervention, by the parties by themselves and to their satisfaction. Within the litigation process for financial matters developed a negotiation phase centred around a compulsory conference with a Registrar of the Court. This conference, originally called a Regulation 96 conference, then an Order 24 conference and now aconciliation conference is a home grown negotiation opportunity for parties which was developed by the Court to cater for the demands of the litigation process in whichit is embedded. Until 1991, it was the only opportunity sponsored by the Court apart from general therapeutic counselling. During the 1980's identifiable opportunities existed to expand this single and limited conference opportunity out of the litigation dominance and into a separate dispute resolution process. These were not taken up by the Family Court and litigation remained the dominant dispute resolution process until the introduction of mediation on a trial basis in 1991 as a second dispute resolution process resulting from a political initiative of the then Hawke Labor Government. Mediation can be seen as a method of empowering couples to avoid expensive litigation and to take control of their owndisputes, within the original vision for the Court.This thesis charts the development of and mediation of financial disputes under the Family Law Act and compares and contrasts these conflict resolutionmethods using criteria from two viewpoints. The first two criteria view each method of solving disputes from the perspective of the client. These two criteria aresatisfaction with the process and with the outcome of the process. The third criterion views each method from the perspective of the Family Court as the provider of theprocess and evaluates both mediation and the conference using overall settlement rates. The comparison of mediation and conciliation presented some difficulties. Although mediation has been extensively evaluated by the Court, the conference forming part of litigation has had no similar evaluation by the Court except a general recording of settlement statistics.While both mediation and conferences are found to be forms of guided negotiation, this similarity is of a general nature only and the thesis identifiescountervailing contrasts at this general level, particularly in the role of the third party neutral. Under specific Family Law practice there are further areas of difference but several areas in which no comparison can be made. This is because, in the case of conferences, either no data exists because there has been no systematic evaluation by the Family Court or, where data does exist, the differences in the size and composition of the pools to be compared is so great as to make any meaningful comparison impossible. This re-inforces the dominance of litigation in the outlook of the Court itself because of the continued acceptance of conciliation within litigation without evaluation and the difficulties this outlook creates for the willing introduction of other alternative dispute resolution processes into the Court structure. Future desirable directions for these and other forms of dispute resolution processes within the Court structure are examined and the thesis identifies the immediate period as the next opportunity for the Family Court to change the traditional litigation outlook of the Court to encompass other forms of dispute resolution, including the expansion of conciliation into a separate conflict resolution process offered by theCourt to facilitate settlement by the parties to their satisfaction. It remains speculative whether the Court has the capacity and will to initiate the necessary steps towards desirable change or whether political direction will be necessary to permit fulfilment of the vision within two decades of its original expression." @default.
• W10706472 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W10706472 creator A5090364509 @default.
• W10706472 date "1993-01-01" @default.
• W10706472 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W10706472 title "A comparative study of conciliation and mediation in the settlement of financial matters within the family court of Australia" @default.
• W10706472 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W10706472 type Work @default.
• W10706472 sameAs 10706472 @default.
• W10706472 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W10706472 crossrefType "dissertation" @default.
• W10706472 hasAuthorship W10706472A5090364509 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C131676636 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C131932780 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C139997747 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C145810771 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C175762713 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C179420905 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C199776023 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C2776862595 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C2778745096 @default.
• W10706472 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C10138342 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C131676636 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C131932780 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C139997747 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C144133560 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C145097563 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C145810771 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C175762713 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C17744445 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C179420905 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C199539241 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C199776023 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C2776862595 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C2777063073 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C2778745096 @default.
• W10706472 hasConceptScore W10706472C83009810 @default.
• W10706472 hasLocation W107064721 @default.
• W10706472 hasOpenAccess W10706472 @default.
• W10706472 hasPrimaryLocation W107064721 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W1593923824 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W1897283657 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2094460210 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2099498874 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2135661722 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2147913999 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2159041113 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2492121028 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2555435489 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2784132407 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W2953731963 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W3088084241 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W3124176164 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W3181180096 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W3185584409 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W588496839 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W597376405 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W633162117 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W756060904 @default.
• W10706472 hasRelatedWork W86086462 @default.
• W10706472 isParatext "false" @default.
• W10706472 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W10706472 magId "10706472" @default.
• W10706472 workType "dissertation" @default.