Limitations of Alternative Dispute Resolution:

Numerous disadvantages are blocking the approach of winning dispute resolution and often distressing both parties attitude to reconcile for a comprised decision some of the disadvantages are:

(a) Uneven Negotiating Command

In convinced situations, one side is capable to have power over the other. For that reason, a noteworthy discrepancy of power exists. E.g.: Employment and annulment cases, making the courts an improved alternative for a weak party.

(b) Short of Legal Expertise:

Where an argument involves complicated legal points a mediator or arbitrator is doubtful to have the same legal proficiency and knowledge as a judge. The dispute can be of a range of situations such as viable conflicts, social conflicts, legal conflicts, and many others which necessitate dedicated mediators. Most of the cases, the mediator does not acquire a judge's perspective.

(c) No Organization of Specific mock-up :

It is not easy to envisage the conclusion of a dispute determined through ADR as there is no method of precedent. Therefore, it is easier to get evidence from the other party in a lawsuit. Short of system fallout in the restricted prediction of outcomes.

(d) Enforceability:

Usually, ADR is not lawfully compulsory making any award complicated to implement Legal arbitration has some kind of course of action for internal appeals, which enables the assessment as an obligatory and only issue to the assessment of Court.

(e) Required Court Action:

The arbitrator’s verdict can necessitate a court action if one of the parties declines to acknowledge the arbitrator's conclusion. This would not only generate pandemonium but also an obligatory review by the court. Thus, ADR occasionally elevates the question of biasness of the arbitrator’s pronouncement. Also, there is a very flawed panorama for judicial assessment of an arbitrator’s decision.

(f) Limits Discovery Process:

ADR normally happening without the fortification obtainable parties in litigation, such as those rules administrated during innovation. Courts commonly allocate an enormous arrangement of leeway in the sighting procedure, which is not vigorous in substitute dispute resolution.