Perceived Advantages

Arbitration may allow a dispute to remain private, and the publicity inevitably associated with litigation may be avoided. The public interest is also served because the parties bear the costs of arbitration themselves. Arbitration is more flexible than litigation. The parties have control over their own dispute, the procedures followed and the principles applied to resolve it. This increases the satisfaction of the disputants with the process and the outcome. Arbitration is also faster, and consequently, less expensive, than litigation. There is no precedent value in the decision reached, so a concern for future cases will not impact on the decision. As the procedure can be designed to be far less formal and intimidating than court, the confrontational atmosphere of the dispute is diminished. This is especially important in maintaining ongoing business relationships. If experts are used as arbitrators, the process should be more efficient, and results maybe more in accord (or perceived to be more in accord) with the expectations of the parties, when they are in the same field as the expert.

Perceived disadvantages

Arbitration may not always be faster, less expensive, and less formal. It may be more expensive and time-consuming than litigation if the arbitration agreement, choice or conduct of arbitrators, procedure, or award is challenged. In addition, there are concerns regarding ability and qualifications of arbitrators, and whether they should be subject to professional standards. Generally, arbitral decisions are not reviewable for errors of fact of law, which may lead to unfair results.

Can you add more perceived advantages and disadvantages?