Aug 17, 2026 · 1 hr 15 min · 10 segments
In this episode of Think Resolution, Foley's List barrister David Kim speaks with VCAT Senior Member Charlene Price about the critical role of alternative dispute resolution at the Tribunal. They…
Charlene PriceGuestDavid KimHostCan you tell us a bit about, just an overview about mediation and compulsory conference? Because some people may not be aware of the differences between the two.
So mediation and compulsory conference are both forms of ADR that are set out in the VCAT Act.
And mediation typically at a practical level will usually be be conducted by a mediator at VCAT.
Those VCAT mediators are appointed to the panel and they are often barristers or mediators who have their own private mediation practice.
The mediation is generally a form of facilitative ADR process and what that really means is that a mediator is assisting the parties to talk through the issues in dispute and assisting them to think about ways that the dispute might be resolved without it needing to be heard and determined by the tribunal and And in that way, the mediator is working with the parties, but is not making suggestions themselves about what the outcome should be, is not giving an opinion about the case or the likely outcome of the case.
but is really reality testing and asking the right questions of parties to enable the parties to start to think about the issues that they need to turn their minds to in exploring the way a matter might be resolved.
So a member of the tribunal, again, is facilitating those discussions between the parties.
The member is not there in the ordinary sense that a member would be there at hearing.
They're not there to hear evidence, make findings of fact, or make a decision for the parties.
But what the member will do in a compulsory conference or will often do in a compulsory conference is give parties some feedback in a private session.
about where they think the strengths and weaknesses of that party's case lie or that they might need to think about if the matter does proceed to final hearing.
The member conducting the compulsory conference will not be the member hearing and deciding the matter if it cannot be resolved at compulsory conference.
But it's about having that member who does hear and determine these disputes turn their mind to the particular issues in the matter and give the parties some feedback.
So it's potentially a bit more of an... evaluative process and certainly the member might also make suggestions to the parties about potential ways to resolve the matter or ask the parties have they turned their mind to this or have they turned their mind to that.
So I would say The main difference between the two processes is that the mediation really facilitates the discussion and negotiation.
Can you tell us a bit about, just an overview about mediation and compulsory conference? Because some people may not be aware of the differences between the two.
So mediation and compulsory conference are both forms of ADR that are set out in the VCAT Act.
And mediation typically at a practical level will usually be be conducted by a mediator at VCAT.
Those VCAT mediators are appointed to the panel and they are often barristers or mediators who have their own private mediation practice.
The mediation is generally a form of facilitative ADR process and what that really means is that a mediator is assisting the parties to talk through the issues in dispute and assisting them to think about ways that the dispute might be resolved without it needing to be heard and determined by the tribunal and And in that way, the mediator is working with the parties, but is not making suggestions themselves about what the outcome should be, is not giving an opinion about the case or the likely outcome of the case.
but is really reality testing and asking the right questions of parties to enable the parties to start to think about the issues that they need to turn their minds to in exploring the way a matter might be resolved.
So a member of the tribunal, again, is facilitating those discussions between the parties.
The member is not there in the ordinary sense that a member would be there at hearing.
They're not there to hear evidence, make findings of fact, or make a decision for the parties.
But what the member will do in a compulsory conference or will often do in a compulsory conference is give parties some feedback in a private session.
about where they think the strengths and weaknesses of that party's case lie or that they might need to think about if the matter does proceed to final hearing.
The member conducting the compulsory conference will not be the member hearing and deciding the matter if it cannot be resolved at compulsory conference.
But it's about having that member who does hear and determine these disputes turn their mind to the particular issues in the matter and give the parties some feedback.
So it's potentially a bit more of an... evaluative process and certainly the member might also make suggestions to the parties about potential ways to resolve the matter or ask the parties have they turned their mind to this or have they turned their mind to that.
So I would say The main difference between the two processes is that the mediation really facilitates the discussion and negotiation.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
