Judicial review

1. Briefly discuss the concept of” Informal process”

Informal processes are the judicial processes that are used to bring together two parties who have had a disagreement before to shortly after they had disagreed before court case, Peter W, 1963. The informal processes do not require cases to be taken to the court as the cases can be solved without being heard in court. The informal processes include dispute resolution processes that help the two parties who are in disagreement to solve their dispute. The informal processes of solving disputes have gained recognition in the legal profession as well as in the public. In the recent past, most courts require the parties in disagreement to use the informal methods of solving disputes before accepting their cases to be heard in court, Peter W, 1963. This means that the informal methods of solving disputes are a good method that can help people to end their collisions.

Due to the increased number of traditional courts, the informal methods of solving disputes have continued to gain popularity. There are several methods of informal processes in the judiciary. We have the mediation which is an informal method of solving disputes where in the presence of a third party, the disagreeing parties can have a resolution to their problem but the third party can only suggest a resolution but cannot impose it to the parties.

Negotiation is another informal method of the judicial process. In negotiation, the two disagreeing parties can achieve a resolution without necessarily having a third party to help them. We also have arbitration method as an informal method solving disputes that requires the two disagreeing parties to come to an agreement in the presence of a third party that imposes the resolution to them, Peter W, 1963. The informal processes are seen to offer a good opportunity for achieving administrative justice and for offering effective regulation in the interest of the people. In using the informal processes of solving problems, the disagreeing parties can be refereed to non formal authorities and intercession. Informal judicial processes do not depend on any court procedure for handling cases.

There informal methods of conflict resolution in the judicial processes have advantages as well as disadvantages. First the informal processes of the judiciary are beneficial because they are cheaper as compared to the court hearings. When a case is heard in court, it consumes a lot of money compared to if the case was just solved via the informal process. More so, informal processes ensure that there is confidentiality in any case they tackle unlike the formal process. This assures the parties in disagreement that their resolutions are kept secret and that no one learns about them against their wish.

Informal processes are also good because they give the parties an opportunity to choose the person to decide their dispute. Thus, there is a lot of flexibility in choosing the person to determine their case unlike in formal processes, Peter W, 1963. Once cases are solved through the informal processes, the parties can preserve their reputations and maintain their relationships. Informal methods of solving conflict are also good because they are faster as compared to the formal processes that are a bit slow due to their long procedures.

The solutions achieved in the process of using informal process are always to satisfy the needs and interests of the parties in conflict unlike in the formal processes where the solutions are based on the wants and rights. Informal methods also have an advantage because the agreements arrived at are permanent and the processes of solving the problems are never complex. On the other hand, the informal processes also have disadvantages. One disadvantage of the informal methods of solving disputes is that the informal processes depend on the willingness of the two parties to come to an agreement. In cases where one of the parties is not ready to negotiate with the other party, it becomes very difficult to solve the problem thus this can delay the process of attaining administrative justice. More so, there is a problem with informal processes of the judiciary because the people who play the role of the third party may not have enough experience that can help them suggest better resolutions that can help the disagreeing parties end their conflict.

2. Identify and discuss briefly the questions usually asked during judicial review of agency

When there is a judicial review of an agency action, there are questions that must be asked. Judicial review of an agency action is usually done when there are no facts to support the decision made by the agency or when the decision made is seen as being irrational. During the judicial review of an agency action, mixed questions of the law and the facts followed are usually asked. The court has to know whether facts were followed in solving the problem and whether the requirements of the law were put into consideration.

There are two questions that are commonly asked during the judicial review of the agency actions. First, the court must ask the question of whether it has the right to review the action of the agency, Carper D. et al, 2007. The person bringing the action has the right to bring the suite. The court must also know whether the plaintiff had shown dissatisfaction with the decision made by the agency and also whether the interest the complainant is trying to protect is within the zone of the interests to be protected. The other question to be asked is about the scope of the court’s review, Carper D. et al, 2007. The court should know its scope of review by asking whether the plaintiff has standing, administrative remedies were fully exhausted and whether the case is ripe for review. The court must know to what extend it can review the case while ensuring that the rights of the parties are protected.



Peter W, (1963). Administrative law, the informal process. Berkeley. University of California


Carper D. et al, (2007). Understanding the law. New York. Cengage publishing

Place an order