University arbitration can reduce backlog of court cases

UNDOUBTEDLY, the courts in many countries, including Malaysia, are burdened with cases.

The disposal of cases takes many years and this may have a negative impact on the very essence of justice — “justice delayed is justice denied”.

In order to relieve the burden of the courts, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have been introduced.

Arbitration has emerged as a popular alternative for dispute resolution.

The disputing parties can appoint arbitrators, select the applicable laws and procedures, specify the timeframe for dispute resolution and choose the place of arbitration.

This is aside from the fact that arbitration is private and confidential. Furthermore, the arbitral award is final and binding, and generally cannot be appealed.

Despite the merits, arbitration has its setbacks and limitations such as high costs and possible delay in dispute settlement due to the busy schedules of the arbitrators.

To cater for the improvement of the administration of justice, university arbitration is an option that ought to be explored.

Pursuant to the university arbitration scheme, a litigation filed in the court may be converted into an arbitration scheme and be heard by the university faculty members, affiliated and accredited by the courts.

Undoubtedly, universities have untapped potential to provide faster and cheaper arbitration services.

Most of the established public universities have talented professors who can be arbitrators at a nominal cost.

To effectively implement the university arbitration, the laws dealing with the jurisdiction and powers of the courts have to be amended to empower the courts to refer suitable cases to the participating universities for arbitration.

Before the academic staff of the participating universities are appointed to the task, training and guidance would have to be provided and this could be made possible with the support of arbitral institutions.

The benefits of university arbitration are multifold, particularly in the improvement of the administration of justice.

Therefore, the judiciary and agencies should consider it.