CONCILIATION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 15 November 1924, Page 15

CONCILIATION.

, 9 : I FOR MOST CIVIL CASES. I EXCLUDING LAWYERS. I SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PROPOSAL.! SYDNEY, Oct. 28. I If the recommendations of the Roy M Commission on Law Reform in Sout! Australia, which, have just been issuer! are carried into effect by the Labor! Government in that State, and the® seems to be every probability that the! will be, the part played by lawye® in the settlement of civil cases will ® enormously minimised. The proposal ® to establish conciliation courts on sin® lar lines to those which have been. ® existence in Denmark and Norway sin® 1795. It is proposed that in all ch® cases, with certain specific exception® the parties shall be required to subn® the matters in dispute to the- conci® ation court, which, sitting in earner® and without the aid of lawyers r® either side-, shall endeavour to rea® an amicable settlement. It would on® be upon the issue of a certificate sho® mg that these proceedings had fail® that it would be competent for tl® parties to take the case to the ordina® court. ■ ' The general public, in the opinicl of th© commission, although havit® every confidence in the honour and i® tegrity of the judiciary and the magi® tracy, seeks the assistance of the lal courts only in the last resort. ‘ ‘The® is npt only a desire on the part of tfl public to avoid legal proceedings,” sa® the report, “but according to the e\® dence some solicitors endeavour to bri® about a settlement of the cases wi® which, they are called upon to de® without recourse to the machinery ® the courts. It is only reasonable fl suppose, and the evidence supports t® supposition, that many persons are pared to suffer injustice rather tha® avail themselves of the means of o® taining redress which the law cour® afford- The principal objections to e® tenng the law courts are the cost ® litigation, the publicity given to d® mestic and private affairs, and t® treatment to which witnesses are soin® times subjected in cross-examination T® opposing counsel. The legal syste® cannot be considered perfect so lon® as these objections exist, and the Coi® mission have been giving their conside® ation to the question of how they ca! best be met. They have come to th! conclusion that the remedy lies in thl direction of mediation and conciliation! It some solicitors to contending partiel can bring about a settlement of dis| putes it only needs an extension of tl® system of conciliation to embrace all cases that are capable of successful settlement m that manner.” 1 Briefly, the Danish system, which| with certain necessary modifications il recommended, provides for litigants bel mg required to appear before a Con| ciliation Court personally, with the ob| ject of endeavouring, without the asl sistance of lawyers, to settle their disl putes .by before they call Tv, Ve rf CCe - S r the ordinary law courtl the Conciliation Court in Copenhagen consists of three persons—a magistral® not connected with the law courts aJ pomtmi bv the Minister of Justice,’ an® or the other two one is appointed b! the magistrates and the other ’by thl local governing body.. The duty f j the court is to endeavour to concil® mf v rt,e +i >ut 11 ot to pronounce judj nent on the merits of anv case excel® ■n c1a,„, 5 to,- petty debts. "If a „ aSSI ment is arrived at it ha s th© force ol a judgment, but if mediation fails till i«oourt a 'Vb h< > rigi vt iii [IS ;T, " ‘ thoat , Prejudice to any a] tte lai eeS. U ' t,n ’ atel )' I <rith aS™M 10 ,je l ™eh „ s: Cases nf i Ve ’t 'V- ,R domiciled outside of Soutl ■Australia; urgent cases (such as easel i” about M ls > lie^ d the defendanl is. about to abscond); petitions fol divorce; maritime eases; cases relatinl