An appropriate business dispute resolution will ensure that the parties involved would not have to spend too much time and cost to resolve their case. There are two ways to resolve business disputes, through litigatio...An appropriate business dispute resolution will ensure that the parties involved would not have to spend too much time and cost to resolve their case. There are two ways to resolve business disputes, through litigation and non-litigation process. The non-litigation process mainly depends upon the agreement of the parties involved and does not have a formally binding force upon them. Although the non-litigation process is more preferred in resolving business disputes, sometimes it does not completely resolve the issue. A specific business dispute resolution procedure such as the mechanism of small claims court （an informal court） is required. The objectives of the small claims court are to settle cases in prompt and cost-effective manner, and to avoid lengthy and complex formal legal procedures. Although it is still a part of the litigation process, the small claims court applies simplified procedures that are different from those of conventional civil cases. Nonetheless, the judgment of the small claims court has the same legally binding force as that of general court. The small claims court is situated in the District Court, but the examination of cases is different from general procedures and until now the mechanism has not been widely known in Indonesia.展开更多
As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observatio...As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observation and analysis confined to litigation costs, that can legitimize the sharing of court and litigation costs and clarify the demarcation between public and private costs. This first-order rule of cost-sharing is intended to establish a balance between the state＇s investment of public resources in the judicial system and the costs borne by the litigant. The second-order rule of cost-sharing centers on the distribution of litigation costs among litigants. This requires not only the setting up of the goal of just and equitable sharing of litigation costs, but also the overall consideration of the adjustment function of the cost mechanism in litigation and pursuit of the general improvement of the justice system. The third-order cost-sharing rule should focus on giving full play to the legal services market and social organizations in sharing the cost of litigation. Its success will depend on the development of professional ethics and on legal regulation.展开更多
文摘An appropriate business dispute resolution will ensure that the parties involved would not have to spend too much time and cost to resolve their case. There are two ways to resolve business disputes, through litigation and non-litigation process. The non-litigation process mainly depends upon the agreement of the parties involved and does not have a formally binding force upon them. Although the non-litigation process is more preferred in resolving business disputes, sometimes it does not completely resolve the issue. A specific business dispute resolution procedure such as the mechanism of small claims court （an informal court） is required. The objectives of the small claims court are to settle cases in prompt and cost-effective manner, and to avoid lengthy and complex formal legal procedures. Although it is still a part of the litigation process, the small claims court applies simplified procedures that are different from those of conventional civil cases. Nonetheless, the judgment of the small claims court has the same legally binding force as that of general court. The small claims court is situated in the District Court, but the examination of cases is different from general procedures and until now the mechanism has not been widely known in Indonesia.
文摘As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observation and analysis confined to litigation costs, that can legitimize the sharing of court and litigation costs and clarify the demarcation between public and private costs. This first-order rule of cost-sharing is intended to establish a balance between the state＇s investment of public resources in the judicial system and the costs borne by the litigant. The second-order rule of cost-sharing centers on the distribution of litigation costs among litigants. This requires not only the setting up of the goal of just and equitable sharing of litigation costs, but also the overall consideration of the adjustment function of the cost mechanism in litigation and pursuit of the general improvement of the justice system. The third-order cost-sharing rule should focus on giving full play to the legal services market and social organizations in sharing the cost of litigation. Its success will depend on the development of professional ethics and on legal regulation.
