Good Faith, Bad Faith? Making an Effort in Dispute Resolution


The behaviour of those engaged in negotiation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes that are undertaken or required before or after litigation is increasingly the subject of legislative regulation. Recent case law has also more clearly articulated the characteristics of good faith as well as other standards such as 'genuine effort' and explored to a limited extent the behavioural indicators and approaches that could be used to determine the meaning and scope of these types of concepts. Arguably, the growth in mandatory (rather than voluntary) ADR may require the articulation of clearer conduct obligations as ADR participants may be disinclined to negotiate or may be relatively unsophisticated or unaware of their negotiation behaviour. This article explores the development of conduct obligations and notes that whilst the requirements need to be linked to the circumstances of each dispute, there are some clear differences in terms of how these requirements are more generally interpreted by lawyers and others.

How to Cite
Sourdin, T. (2012) “Good Faith, Bad Faith? Making an Effort in Dispute Resolution”, Victoria University Law and Justice Journal. Melbourne, Australia, 2(1), pp. 19-29. doi: 10.15209/vulj.v2i1.10.