'Litigation Is Not Always the Answer': Justice Kodagoda Urges Rethink of Legal System

COLOMBO (News 1st): Supreme Court Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, has called for a fundamental shift in how disputes are resolved in Sri Lanka, warning that excessive reliance on litigation has contributed significantly to court congestion and delays in the administration of justice.

Justice Kodagoda said Sri Lanka is not alone in grappling with the challenge of overloaded court systems, noting that many countries around the world are facing similar difficulties as increasing numbers of cases continue to flood judicial institutions.

According to the Supreme Court Judge, delays in the administration of justice have evolved into a national issue that now commands the attention of governments, judicial leaders and the wider public.

"We live in an era where not only in Sri Lanka, but in many other countries as well, courts are inundated with cases. The issue of clogged court systems and delays in the administration of justice has become a national concern requiring intervention at multiple levels," he said.

Justice Kodagoda observed that one of the key reasons for this situation is the tendency among legal professionals to instinctively resort to litigation, often treating courtroom adjudication as the primary or superior method of resolving disputes.

He acknowledged that legal education has traditionally placed judicial adjudication at the apex of dispute resolution mechanisms, leading generations of lawyers and academics to view alternative methods such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration as secondary options.

However, he argued that evidence and user satisfaction studies increasingly demonstrate that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not weaker substitutes for litigation and, in many cases, can deliver outcomes that are equally effective or even more beneficial for those involved.

Justice Kodagoda stressed that while certain matters, particularly complex commercial disputes and criminal cases, require judicial intervention and formal adjudication, the vast majority of disputes do not necessarily need to be resolved through the courts.

"Nearly 90 percent of disputes faced by individuals, organizations and corporate entities can be resolved effectively through alternative means of dispute resolution," he noted.

The Judge suggested that the legal community move away from viewing these mechanisms merely as alternatives and instead recognise them as appropriate and often preferable forms of dispute resolution.

He further highlighted the broader value of negotiation, noting that public discussions frequently focus on negotiation as a tool for resolving disputes while overlooking its importance in preventing disputes from arising in the first place.

According to Justice Kodagoda, negotiation plays a critical role in helping parties reach mutually beneficial agreements, particularly in commercial settings where contracts, business arrangements and other legally enforceable understandings are formed.

He explained that the same skills used in negotiating settlements can be applied to the successful creation of commercial contracts and agreements, thereby reducing the likelihood of future conflicts.

Justice Kodagoda said the ability to negotiate effectively is not only important for dispute resolution but is also essential for economic growth and national development.