Adjudicator – Simplified Must Know

Mediation and arbitration are two dispute resolution processes that can be used when parties cannot resolve their disputes through negotiation or litigation. Mediation involves a third-party mediator who facilitates communication between disputants to help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Arbitration, on the other hand, involves an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators who listen to evidence presented by both parties and make a binding decision.

The selection of mediators or arbitrators is a critical component of the mediation and arbitration process. Here’s a look at how mediators and arbitrators are selected and other relevant information:

1. Qualifications and experience

Mediators and arbitrators must have the necessary qualifications and experience to handle the type of dispute in question effectively. They must have the appropriate educational background, training, and professional expertise in dispute resolution. This may include a law degree, mediation or arbitration training, certification, and relevant work experience.

2. Certification

In many jurisdictions, mediators and arbitrators must be certified by a relevant regulatory body or organization. Certification requirements usually include completion of training and education programs, work experience, and demonstrated proficiency in dispute resolution.

3. Screening and selection

The process of selecting mediators and arbitrators varies based on the jurisdiction and the institution handling the dispute. In some cases, the disputing parties may choose the mediator or arbitrator themselves. In other cases, a mediation or arbitration institution may have a list of mediators and arbitrators from which the parties can choose. The institution may also screen and appoint mediators and arbitrators based on their qualifications, experience, and other relevant criteria.

4. Conflict of interest checks

Mediators and arbitrators are expected to be impartial and unbiased, and they must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before the mediation or arbitration process begins. A conflict of interest check includes reviewing the mediators or arbitrators’ relationships with the disputing parties, any personal or financial interests in the outcome of the mediation or arbitration, and any prior involvement in the dispute.

5. Availability

Mediators and arbitrators must be available to attend mediation or arbitration sessions on the agreed-upon dates. This may include scheduling flexibility and availability to travel, depending on the location of the dispute.

6. Cost

Mediation and arbitration costs may vary depending on the jurisdiction, institution, and selected mediator or arbitrator. The cost may include administrative fees, hourly rates, and other expenses associated with the mediation or arbitration process.

7. Confidentiality

Mediators and arbitrators must maintain confidentiality throughout the mediation or arbitration process to protect the privacy of the disputing parties and any information that is disclosed during the process.

In summary, mediators and arbitrators are selected based on their qualifications, experience, certification, conflict of interest checks, availability, cost, and confidentiality. The selection process may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the institution handling the dispute. Through careful selection, the mediator or arbitrator can provide an impartial and unbiased resolution to assist both parties in resolving their dispute.

The Role of Adjudicators in Administrative Law: Ensuring Fairness and Impartiality

Administrative law governs the actions and decisions of administrative agencies, playing a vital role in ensuring the accountability, fairness, and due process of these agencies. Central to the administrative law process is the role of adjudicators, who are responsible for making decisions in administrative hearings. This article will explore the important role of adjudicators in administrative law, their qualifications, independence, and the impact they have on the legal rights and interests of individuals and organizations.

Defining Adjudicators in Administrative Law:

Adjudicators in administrative law are individuals or panels appointed by administrative agencies or other delegated bodies to preside over hearings and make decisions in specific cases. The primary function of these adjudicators is to impartially and objectively assess the facts and legal arguments presented by the parties involved and then determine the appropriate outcome or resolution.

Qualifications of Adjudicators:

To ensure the integrity and credibility of the administrative process, adjudicators must possess certain qualifications and expertise:

1. Knowledge of Administrative Law: Adjudicators should have a solid understanding of administrative law principles, procedures, and the relevant statutes and regulations governing the specific area in which they are presiding. This knowledge allows them to appropriately apply the law to the facts of individual cases.

2. Legal Expertise: Adjudicators should possess a legal background, such as being qualified lawyers or having extensive experience in the field of law. This expertise enables them to effectively analyze legal arguments presented by parties and make well-reasoned decisions.

3. Impartiality and Independence: Adjudicators must exhibit impartiality and independence to adjudicate cases fairly. They should not have any personal or financial conflicts of interest that could compromise their decision-making and must act independently from the agency or parties involved in the case.

4. Procedural Fairness and Communication Skills: Adjudicators must have strong communication skills to ensure that parties understand the hearing process, have the opportunity to present their arguments, and can respond to questions or requests for clarification. Adjudicators must also maintain procedural fairness by giving parties a fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Adjudicatory Process:

The adjudicatory process in administrative law entails several key components:

1. Notice and Filing: Adjudicators are responsible for providing parties with notice of the hearing and the issues to be determined. This ensures that the affected parties have an opportunity to prepare their cases and present evidence and legal arguments.

2. Conducting Hearings: Adjudicators preside over administrative hearings, allowing the parties to present their cases, cross-examine witnesses, and provide evidence. Adjudicators facilitate the proceedings, ensure orderly and fair hearings, and maintain control over the process.

3. Assessment of the Evidence: Adjudicators carefully evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. This assessment may involve weighing witness testimonies, scrutinizing documents, or considering expert opinions. Adjudicators determine the reliability and credibility of the evidence and apply the relevant legal standards to reach a fair and just decision.

4. Decision-Making: Adjudicators render written decisions that outline their analysis, findings of fact, and the legal reasoning behind their conclusions. These decisions are usually binding on the parties involved, subject to any further appeal mechanisms.

The Importance of Adjudicators in Administrative Law:

Adjudicators play a crucial role in ensuring the fairness and legitimacy of the administrative process:

1. Protecting Legal Rights: Adjudicators act as safeguards for individuals and organizations by ensuring that their legal rights and interests are preserved and protected during the administrative process. By considering all relevant evidence and legal arguments, adjudicators can make fair and just decisions.

2. Maintaining the Rule of Law: Adjudicators help uphold the rule of law by ensuring that administrative agencies act within their delegated powers and adhere to legal requirements. They prevent any abuse of authority, ensuring that agencies act in accordance with established legal principles.

3. Encouraging Accountability and Transparency: Through their decision-making and adherence to procedural fairness, adjudicators contribute to making administrative agencies more accountable and transparent. Adjudicatory hearings provide an opportunity for the public and affected parties to observe how decisions are made and hold agencies accountable for their actions.

4. Ensuring Consistency and Predictability: Adjudicators contribute to the development of consistent and predictable administrative law by rendering decisions that establish precedent and provide guidance for future cases. This contributes to legal certainty and promotes a more stable administrative framework.

Adjudicators in administrative law play a critical role in ensuring fair and impartial decision-making, protecting legal rights, and upholding the rule of law. With their qualifications, independence, and expertise, adjudicators contribute to a system that is accountable, transparent, and consistent. Their role in the adjudicatory process is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of administrative agencies and protecting the legal interests of individuals and organizations affected by administrative actions.

More on What is an Adjudicator?

An adjudicator is a person designated by an administrative tribunal or court to determine questions of fact, law, or the amount to be paid in a dispute or claim. Adjudicators are empowered to make binding decisions, sometimes after conducting a hearing or review of evidence presented by the parties involved in the dispute. An adjudicator’s role is to interpret and apply the law or regulations relevant to the dispute and render a fair and impartial decision.

Adjudicators are commonly found in administrative law, a specialized area of law that deals with the actions of government agencies and other bodies that exercise public functions. Administrative law governs the way in which government agencies and tribunals carry out their duties, including the regulation of public services and the resolution of disputes between individuals and the state.

The Adjudication Process

The adjudication process typically starts when one party files a claim or complaint with an administrative tribunal or court. Adjudicative bodies may hear disputes arising from a variety of areas, including labor and employment, immigration, taxation, social benefits, environmental protection, and health and safety regulations. Each adjudicative body may have its own procedures, rules, and timelines that must be followed by the parties involved in a dispute.

Once a complaint has been filed, the parties involved may be asked to submit evidence or arguments in writing. They may also be required to attend a hearing or conference, where they have an opportunity to present their case in person and answer questions from the adjudicator. An adjudicator’s decision may be issued immediately after a hearing or conference, or it may be issued in writing at a later date.

Role of Adjudicator

The role of an adjudicator is to make decisions that are fair, impartial, and based on the evidence presented. Adjudicators must interpret and apply the relevant law or regulations to the facts of the case and render a decision that is consistent with legal principles and precedents. Adjudicators must also ensure that the parties involved in a dispute are given a fair hearing, that their legal rights are respected, and that the decision is based on the principles of natural justice.

Adjudicators must maintain their impartiality when conducting hearings or reviewing evidence. They must not be biased towards one party or the other, and they must not have a personal interest in the outcome of the dispute. Adjudicators must remain objective when examining the facts and applying the law, even if they disagree with the parties’ arguments or opinions.

Fair Hearing

The principle of a fair hearing is an essential element of the adjudication process. Adjudicators must ensure that the parties involved in a dispute are given an opportunity to present their case, cross-examine witnesses, and respond to evidence that is presented against them. Adjudicators must ensure that the parties have access to legal representation if they choose to have one. Adjudicators must also ensure that all parties have an opportunity to respond to the decision before it is final.

Legal Rights

Adjudicators must ensure that the parties’ legal rights are respected during the adjudication process. This includes the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to present evidence. Adjudicators must also ensure that the parties are aware of their legal rights and can exercise them during the adjudication process.

Appeals Process

The appeals process is an essential component of the adjudication process. If a party is dissatisfied with the decision of an adjudicator, they may have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The appeals process must provide an opportunity for the parties to present their case and have their legal rights respected. The appeals process may involve a review of the decision or a new hearing of the case.

Adjudicative Body

An adjudicative body is an administrative tribunal or court that has been given the authority to render decisions on disputes arising under a particular area of law. Adjudicative bodies may be established by legislation or government regulation and may be given specific powers and functions. Adjudicative bodies are typically composed of experienced adjudicators who have expertise in the area of law in which they are hearing disputes.

Administrative Tribunal

An administrative tribunal is a specialized court that deals with disputes between individuals and the state. Administrative tribunals have the authority to interpret and apply the law in specific areas, such as labor and employment, immigration, taxation, social benefits, environmental protection and health and safety regulations. Administrative tribunals are often established by legislation to provide an alternative to the traditional court system for resolving disputes.

Conclusion

Adjudicators play an essential role in the adjudication process, ensuring that disputes are resolved in a fair, impartial, and timely manner. Adjudicators must be impartial and objective when examining the facts and applying the law, ensuring that legal rights are respected, and that the appeals process is available. Adjudicators work within an administrative tribunal or other adjudicative body that is empowered to resolve disputes between individuals and the state. The adjudication process is an essential component of administrative law, providing an alternative method of dispute resolution to the traditional court system.

What is an Adjudicator?

An adjudicator is someone, typically of rank or a legal professional, who presides, arbitrates and ultimately judges over a formal dispute. As a term, adjudicator in essence, means to “judge”, without invoking the legal term.

An example of an adjudicator is an individual who offers a preliminary ruling or judgment to resolve a legal dispute. The majority of adjudicators will work on non-violent or civil claims to resolve matters such as unemployment insurance claims or monetary squabbles between public bodies and individual citizens.

Meaning of Adjudicated in different types of Legal Cases

Adjudication is a legal term referring to the legal process of resolving a dispute or proceeding through a judicial or administrative system. In the context of various legal cases, the meaning of “adjudicated” may vary. In this article, we will explore the different types of cases where “adjudicated” is commonly used and the meaning of the term in each context.

Adjudication in Criminal Cases

In criminal cases, adjudication refers to the process of a judge or jury determining whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of a crime. If found guilty, the defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment, fines, or other penalties.

Adjudication in civil cases

In civil cases, adjudication refers to the process of resolving a dispute or controversy between parties through a court or other legal process. This type of adjudication is used to determine liability and damages and may result in a judgment, which is a legal decision made by a judge or jury. If liability is determined, a defendant may be required to pay damages or other financial remedies.

Adjudication in Administrative Law

In administrative law, adjudication refers to the legal process of resolving disputes between agencies, government entities, and private citizens. Administrative adjudication is an alternative to traditional court-based litigation, providing a more streamlined process for resolving disputes.

Adjudication in Family Law

In family law, adjudication refers to the legal process of determining the rights and responsibilities of parties in a family dispute. This type of adjudication is used to decide issues such as child custody, child support, visitation, spousal support, and property division.

Adjudication in Immigration Law

In immigration law, adjudication refers to the process of determining eligibility for immigration benefits and applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Adjudication is required for employment-based visas, family-based visas, and other immigration processes.

Adjudication in Bankruptcy Law

In bankruptcy law, adjudication refers to the process of determining the eligibility and dischargeability of debts through court proceedings. In this type of adjudication, a bankruptcy court will review all outstanding debts and determine which are eligible for discharge.

Adjudication in Civil Rights and Employment Law

In civil rights and employment law, adjudication refers to the legal process of resolving disputes related to discrimination, harassment, and other workplace issues. This type of adjudication may involve administrative proceedings or court action, with the goal of resolving issues and providing remedies such as compensation or injunctions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, “adjudicated” refers to the legal process of resolving disputes in different areas of the law, including criminal, civil, administrative, family, immigration, bankruptcy, and civil rights and employment law. In each context, the meaning of “adjudicated” varies, but the overall purpose is to resolve disputes and determine liability and remedies.

It is essential to understand the different meanings of the term “adjudication” to correctly interpret its use in legal contexts. Adjudication plays an essential role in the legal system, providing a process for resolving disputes and ensuring justice is served. Understanding the nuances of adjudication in various legal contexts is crucial for those involved in legal proceedings, including lawyers, judges, and litigants.

Adjudicated Meaning and Related Information: A Deep Dive

The term “adjudicated” is a critical legal term that describes a legal decision that has been made through judicial proceedings by a judge or jury. The term is often used in legal processes where a court or arbitrator settles a dispute between individuals or entities. An adjudicated decision is a final decision that ends a legal proceeding and is considered binding for all parties involved.

The term “adjudicated” means to assign a judgment or an award to a particular case. Adjudicated cases are those that have been resolved in a court of law or through alternative methods like arbitration or mediation. An adjudicated verdict is typically the final outcome of a legal dispute that has been resolved after a legal process that involves the presentation of evidence and arguments by both parties.

Adjudicated cases that have gone through the legal process often set legal precedents, and future cases are guided by these precedents, ensuring consistency in the handling of legal issues. The precedents set in adjudicated cases are vital to the interpretation of future legal issues since they help the court balance the needs of both parties and establish moral principles for and during court proceedings.

The adjudicated decision will determine the outcome of a legal dispute, including whether one party wins or loses, who pays court fees, the amount of compensation awarded to the winning party, and any other relevant legal matters. The finality of an adjudicated decision means that it can only go through an appellate system if certain grounds are met, including due process violations and other legal errors.

Adjudicated cases differ from non-adjudicated cases where disputes are not resolved through a legal process and often handled through informal methods like negotiation or settlements. Non-adjudicated cases do not set legal precedents and are not considered binding as adjudicated cases are.

Adjudicated cases are prevalent in various legal areas, including employment law, civil law, family law, and criminal law. For instance, in a civil lawsuit, a plaintiff may file a claim against a defendant. The defendant files a response to the claim, and both parties engage in the discovery process, where information, evidence, and documents are exchanged between them. If the case proceeds to trial, the judge or jury will adjudicate the claim, and a verdict will be reached.

Similarly, in criminal law, adjudicated decisions are reached in criminal trials as the court determines if an accused is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial. Criminal adjudication is a vital aspect of the justice system since it seeks to uphold the rule of law and ensure that social norms and principles are respected.

In bankruptcy law, adjudicated decisions determine the settlement of legal debts, property liquidation, and how a debtor will repay creditors. In all legal areas, adjudicated decisions are critical to reinforcing the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served.

Adjudicated definitions are essential in legal processes as they establish the meaning and context of legal cases and verdicts. This ensures that all parties involved are aware of the legal parameters that govern the case. Adjudicated definitions describe the outcome of the legal process and try to define the price for both parties objectively. It also mirrors the true essence of justice in the legal system.

For instance, in family law, an adjudicated decision may include the amount of child support or alimony that the non-custodial parent will pay, the division of assets, and the custody arrangement for children. These are objectives and fair decisions that ensure that the best interests of the child are upheld and addressing any potential sources of conflict between both parties.

An adjudicated legal outcome can significantly affect the livelihood of individuals, families and businesses and must be done objectively and translate the true reality of the case. To ensure objectivity, an independent judge or arbitrator is needed who has principles that are fair, transparent and objective.

In conclusion, adjudicated cases are final decisions reached through the legal process, where a judge or jury determines the outcome of a legal dispute. Adjudicated decisions are legally binding and set legal precedents for future legal issues. They play a critical role in ensuring the rule of law, justice, and fairness in the legal system.

Adjudicated outcomes can have a significant impact on individuals, companies, and families, and therefore it is crucial that they are reached through objective and fair methods. The role of an independent judge or arbitrator is vital in ensuring that adjudicated decisions are reached through an objective, fair, and transparent process that fosters trust in the legal system.

—————————

What is the meaning of Adjudication?

Adjudication is a legal process that aims to expedite the delivery of resolutions or punishments to squabbling parties. The result of the adjudication process is a legally-binding judgment; the stipulations and demands of the judgment are legally upheld by a local or federal governing body.

The adjudicated meaning simply refers to the formal legal process by which a judge or arbiter reviews evidence (including legal reasoning offered by litigants or opposing parties) to come to a decision in a legal matter. Typically the cases heard in adjudication setting revolve around disputes over money or non-violent infractions. Regardless of the legal matter at hand, all decisions rendered in the adjudication process will ultimately determine the distribution of rights and obligations for the parties involved. Adjudication is distinct from other justice-seeking or evidence-based resolution formats; in particular, the process is only used to solve the following types of disputes:

Disputes between private parties, such as individual citizens or corporations (who possess a legal personality)

Disputes that arise between public officials and private parties

Disputes between public bodies and public officials

Who is involved in the Adjudication Process?

Adjudication occurs when a natural person, typically someone empowered by an agency, to formalize a binding decision, is given the task of examining evidence or facts to render a legally-acceptable and affirmed judgment.

Adjudication, in the majority of cases, is binding and does not require the inclusion of a jury to render a decision in a civil trial. In the adjudication process, a judge will render a decision regarding the case only after all the evidence has been presented to the presiding official. This legal process is preferred by a number of institutions and individuals in the midst of a legal battle because it is typically less expensive than a trial case and far more expedient.

As stated earlier, a judge (instead of a jury) will typically settle disputes between parties involved in an adjudication process. Although the adjudication process is quicker and typically less expensive, the review of facts is generally thought to be less thorough and sympathetic when compared to a trial by jury. In the legal sense, an adjudicator is not regarded as a mediatory, even though the two parties are required to come to terms or agree on a settlement to resolve a case.

In the majority of situations, a mediator will help find a compromise between feuding parties, but they cannot force the parties to do so. In contrast, the legal adjudication process and the settlement it reaches, does require the parties involved to comply to the punishments or settlements outlined; the resolution the legal adjudication process reaches is legal binding.

Deferred Adjudication in Administrative Law: Balancing Rehabilitation and Accountability

Deferred adjudication is a legal concept that allows individuals, usually first-time offenders, to avoid a formal conviction by participating in a rehabilitative program and complying with certain conditions set forth by the court. While predominantly associated with criminal law, deferred adjudication also finds relevance in administrative law. This article aims to explore the use of deferred adjudication in administrative law, examining its purpose, implementation, potential benefits, and challenges.

Understanding Deferred Adjudication:
1. Definition and Purpose: Deferred adjudication is a legal mechanism that allows individuals accused of misconduct or non-compliance with administrative regulations to avoid formal adjudication and penalty by satisfying specified conditions. Unlike traditional adjudication, deferred adjudication aims to promote rehabilitation, accountability, and the opportunity for individuals to learn from their mistakes without carrying the burden of a formal conviction.

2. Administrative Enforcement: In the administrative law context, deferred adjudication typically arises when individuals or entities are accused of violations and face potential penalties or sanctions by administrative agencies. Instead of immediately proceeding with formal adjudication, an administrative agency may offer deferred adjudication as an alternative, allowing the individuals or entities to take certain remedial actions or comply with specific conditions, thus avoiding formal penalties.

3. Conditions and Compliance: The specific conditions of deferred adjudication vary depending on the nature of the violation and the administrative agency involved. Generally, these conditions may include community service, completion of educational programs, periodic reporting, restitution, or probation-like supervision. Compliance with these conditions within a specified time frame is crucial to successfully completing deferred adjudication.

Benefits of Deferred Adjudication in Administrative Law:
1. Rehabilitation and Education: Deferred adjudication promotes the rehabilitation of individuals through the provision of educational programs, counseling, or community service. By focusing on addressing the underlying causes of the violation, deferred adjudication allows individuals to learn from their mistakes and gain necessary skills or knowledge to prevent future misconduct.

2. Second Chance for First-Time Offenders: For first-time offenders, deferred adjudication offers an opportunity for redemption without the stigma associated with a formal conviction. It acknowledges that individuals can make mistakes but also have the capacity to reform, encouraging personal growth and opportunities for a fresh start.

3. Efficiency and Resource Conservation: Deferred adjudication can lead to more efficient use of administrative resources. Rather than engaging in time-consuming and costly formal adjudications, which may involve formal hearings, discovery procedures, and legal representation, administrative agencies can focus on providing rehabilitative programs or resolutions that encourage compliance.

Challenges and Considerations of Deferred Adjudication:
1. Compliance Monitoring: Ensuring compliance with the conditions of deferred adjudication can be challenging for administrative agencies. Monitoring individuals and entities to verify their adherence to the specified conditions requires administrative resources and effective supervision mechanisms to ensure that the goals of rehabilitation and accountability are met.

2. Equality and Fairness: Administrative agencies must ensure that the use of deferred adjudication is applied consistently and impartially to avoid any perception of favoritism or biased treatment. Fairness is an essential element in maintaining public trust in the administrative system and fostering equal access to rehabilitation opportunities.

3. Potential Abuse or Exploitation: While intended as a rehabilitation tool, the availability of deferred adjudication could create opportunities for abuse or exploitation. Individuals or entities may exploit the system by purposefully committing violations with the expectation of receiving deferred adjudication, undermining the effectiveness and integrity of administrative enforcement efforts.

4. Limited Applicability: Deferred adjudication may not be suitable for all violations or individuals. Certain cases involving severe or repetitive violations may require a more stringent approach to maintain public safety or protect the interests of affected parties. Careful consideration should be given to ensuring that the availability of deferred adjudication aligns with the goals of accountability, rehabilitation, and the specific objectives of administrative regulation.

Balancing Rehabilitation and Accountability:
1. Individualized Approach: Deferred adjudication in administrative law necessitates an individualized approach, taking into account the specific circumstances and needs of each case. Agencies should consider the nature of the violation, the individual’s past behavior, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the potential risks to public safety or interests when determining the appropriateness of deferred adjudication.

2. Transparency and Oversight: To address concerns regarding fairness and ensure the integrity of the deferred adjudication process, administrative agencies should establish clear guidelines, criteria, and procedures governing its implementation. Transparency and oversight mechanisms, such as regular reporting, internal review processes, and public accountability, can help maintain public trust in the administration of deferred adjudication.

3. Limitations and Constraints: Agencies should establish safeguards and limitations on the use of deferred adjudication to prevent abuse or exploitation. Certain violations or circumstances may warrant formal adjudication to address the severity or repetitive nature of the misconduct. Establishing criteria and a process to review or deny deferred adjudication requests when appropriate helps maintain the balance between rehabilitation and accountability.

Conclusion:
Deferred adjudication, although typically associated with criminal law, holds relevance in the realm of administrative law. It offers individuals or entities accused of administrative violations the opportunity for rehabilitation, learning, and personal growth while avoiding the burden of a formal conviction. By balancing rehabilitation and accountability, deferred adjudication promotes the goals of administrative regulation, avoids overburdening resources through formal adjudication, and supports opportunities for second chances. However, careful consideration should be given to its implementation, including transparent guidelines, oversight mechanisms, and limitations to ensure fairness and preserve public trust. Finding the right balance within deferred adjudication represents an ongoing challenge in administrative law, requiring continuous evaluation, refinement, and adaptability to meet evolving needs and societal expectations.

What is Adjudication?

Adjudication is a colloquial term, which refers to the formal legal process by which a judge or arbiter reviews evidence and testimonies including legal reasoning offered by litigants or opposing parties to come to a decision, which ultimately determines the distribution of rights and obligations for the parties involved. Adjudication is distinct from other justice-seeking or evidence-based resolution formats; in particular, the process is only used to solve the following types of disputes:

Disputes between private parties, such as individual citizens or corporations (who possess a legal personality)

Disputes that arise between public officials and private parties

Disputes between public bodies and public officials

Adjudication occurs when a natural person, typically someone empowered by an agency to formalize a binding decision, is given the task of examining evidence or facts to render a legally-acceptable and affirmed judgment. As a result of this process and the broad definition attached, adjudication may refer to a casual form of judging, such as in athletic competitions, where a body of judges adjudicate and awards scores to the competitors; or adjudication may  occur in business, where a qualified judge is called to examine the facts to resolve a dispute between two parties.

As stated earlier, a judge (instead of a jury) will typically settle disputes between parties in adjudication. Although the adjudication process is quicker and typically less expensive, the review of facts is generally thought to be less thorough and sympathetic when compared to a trial by jury.