Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Transactions: A Comparative Study between the UK and Bangladesh Jurisdiction

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entities have been authorized by national law to either offer a solution that, if accepted by both parties, will become binding on them or to impose a solution that will become binding on them regardless of their acceptance. According to the Money Loan Court Act 2003 of Bangladesh, ADR bodies have to appoint natural people who fulfill the criteria of knowledge, independence, and impartiality to complete the entire process of ADR successfully. Therefore, ADR processes can only be run by court-ordered mediation or autonomous administrative agencies, not the financial sector. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in Bangladesh clarifies that this procedure has been provided so that “the principles of independence and impartiality have been observed.” ADR is an avenue to resolve a civil case without going to the court. There are diverse mechanisms of ADR that can resolve the issue. Undoubtedly, ADR has many advantages. However, it is pertinent to note that it has disadvantages as well. ADR has been promoted, and the concerned parties have been encouraged to use it before or during the trial. Lord Justice Woolf, a prominent jurist of the UK, solicited for ADR to avoid cost, delay and complexity in civil cases. On the other hand, ADR is not so familiar in Bangladesh. This paper aims to discover how Bangladesh promotes ADR in commercial disputes and how Bangladesh can follow the UK approach in this respect.