Samenvatting

In the Netherlands, the way in which judges behave and communicate during hearings is increasingly being emphasized. This is related to the implementation of post-defence appearance in Dutch civil hearings (comparitie na antwoord) and a more general, albeit cautious, shift from dispute resolution, focused solely on resolving the legal aspects of a case, towards broader conflict resolution, in which other aspects of a case are considered too. This article compares how six judges managed a civil hearing of the same case. It seeks to explain the different outcomes that resulted from these judges’ hearings (i.e. settlement/judgement/referral to mediator) and seeks to identify what different ways of managing hearings imply for a possible shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution. The empirical study found that the judges’ preparation of the case and their way of beginning and structuring the hearing were very similar; they also discussed similar subjects. Differences were found in how the judges interacted with the parties; the skills they used during hearings; how they used a specific skill; and in how they guided parties in the decision-making process about the outcome. No strong correlation emerged between a specific type of hearing management and the type of outcome selected. Interviews with the judges suggest that the explanation for the different outcomes lies partly in the judges’ personal views (on the appropriate outcome). Such beliefs influence how the judges manage a civil hearing, and indirectly the outcome of a case as well. These findings imply that for a shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution to materialize, this will require judges to develop a common understanding of their responsibilities and to enhance their skills. They will also need to verify their assumptions more, so that the parties’ needs and the judge’s personal beliefs are better matched.