SMU SIDRA Survey Report 2020

9.2.5 With respect to other considerations, Client Users ranked efficiency (52%) and costs (48%) as their second and third considerations while for Legal Users, speed (47%) and cost (47%) were second and third factors in choosing a hybrid mechanism over standalone arbitration. 9.2.6 Interestingly, a higher proportion of Legal Users ranked speed (47%) as an influencing factor in their choice of a hybrid mechanism over arbitration, compared to Client Users (24%). This may reflect an awareness on the part of Legal Users that arbitration is a lengthy process, and that the incorporation of mediation into arbitration can assist in reducing the length of proceedings. For instance, by incorporating mediation before arbitration (like in the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol), even if parties are unable to reach a full settlement during the mediation stage, incorporating mediation before arbitration can help to narrow down the issues in dispute, increasing efficiency in arbitration proceedings later. With an overall more efficient process, speed and cost will also be improved, which addresses users’ dissatisfaction with the speed and costs of arbitration. 33 The chart refers to factors influencing respondents’ choice of Hybrid Dispute Resolution Mechanism compared to Mediation. Note: This question allows for multiple responses. The sum of the percentages may exceed 100% All Users Efficiency Cost Speed Finality Enforceability Others 53% 53% 48% 45% 45% 8% Factors Influencing Choice of Hybrid Dispute Resolution Mechanism Compared to Mediation Exhibit 9.2.3 33 See Satisfaction with Arbitration Experience According to Factor at Exhibit 6.1.2. 34 See Satisfaction with Mediation Experience According to Factor at Exhibit 7.1.3. More than 65% of respondents indicated that they were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the speed (68%) and cost (65%) of mediation. 35 See paragraphs 6.1.4 and 7.1.10 of the Report. 9.2.7 With regards to users’ choice of hybrid mechanisms, as compared to standalone mediation, users indicated efficiency (53%) and costs (53%) as the main influencing factors, with enforceability (48%), speed (45%) and finality (45%) also being closely ranked. Therefore, a hybrid mechanism is able to incorporate the advantages of mediation (in terms of speed and cost), 34 while preserving the enforceability and finality of arbitration. This makes hybrid mechanisms highly efficient processes. 9.2.8 Client Users selected cost (56%) and efficiency (52%), followed closely by enforceability (48%), as the main reasons in their choice of a hybrid mechanism over standalone mediation. As for Legal Users, speed (53%) and efficiency (53%) were the main considerations, closely followed by cost (52%). Interestingly, while 53% of Legal Users selected speed as an influencing factor, only 24% of Client Users selected speed as factor in their choice of a hybrid mechanism over standalone mediation. This may reflect that Legal Users have great confidence and emphasis on speed in their choice of hybrid mechanisms. 9.2.9 The charts have provided insight as to why users prefer hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms over standalone mediation or arbitration. Overall, the responses confirm that hybrid mechanisms have the potential to reduce the perceived disadvantages of standalone mediation or arbitration that have been reflected elsewhere in the survey. 35 SIDRA INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SURVEY 75