Timewasters in Dispute Resolution Systems
- Shiv Martin
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
What persistent and high-conflict complaints reveal about system design, practitioner wellbeing and sustainable conciliation practice
Across conciliation, early resolution and regulatory dispute resolution practice, there is a familiar pattern that as practitioners, we recognise immediately. A relatively small number of matters consume a disproportionate share of time, attention and emotional labour. These cases are not new. They have appeared across jurisdictions and systems for decades, described in different ways but presenting remarkably similar challenges.
In this article, I don’t use the term “timewasters” to describe individuals. On the contrary, in many of these matters, practitioners recognise that the individuals involved have often fallen through the gaps of legal, community and support systems. Their ongoing engagement frequently reflects unmet needs, unacknowledged vulnerability, or genuine difficulty accessing rights, entitlements or appropriate assistance.
Rather, it refers to complaints or dispute resolution requests that overuse or misuse the resources of a dispute resolution system. These matters may be misdirected, fall outside jurisdiction, involve repeated engagement following final outcomes, or arise through persistent or strategic complaint activity.
The concern addressed here is therefore not the legitimacy of grievance, but its misdirection. When rightful concerns are channelled into dispute resolution pathways that cannot provide the form of help being sought, pressure accumulates within systems already operating under significant demand. Over time, this misalignment places strain on conciliation and early resolution teams, delays outcomes for others, and contributes to practitioner fatigue.
This article is written for dispute resolution professionals engaged in reflective practice and community-based learning. Drawing on established research and shared practitioner experience, it invites consideration of how misdirected complaints reveal not individual failure, but system-level gaps, and how collective learning can support stronger, more humane and sustainable dispute resolution systems.
Understanding misdirected and high-demand complaints
Research and practice consistently demonstrate that persistent or high-demand complaints are rarely random. Rather, they emerge where individuals experience unresolved grievance combined with limited access to effective alternatives. De Silva (2025) describes this as a form of complaint repurposing, where formal dispute resolution pathways are used not solely for resolution or enforcement, but as sites for validation, protest or continued engagement when other systems have failed.
For conciliation and early resolution practitioners, this often presents as repeated contact despite clear explanations, requests that fall outside jurisdiction, or efforts to reopen matters following final outcomes. Importantly, the presence of persistence does not negate the legitimacy of the underlying concern. Instead, it reflects a misalignment between what the individual needs and what the system is designed to deliver.
This misalignment is particularly evident in regulatory dispute resolution environments, where statutory limits are firm but community expectations are broad. When these expectations are not clearly understood or communicated, dispute resolution systems crumble.
Patterns observed across dispute resolution systems
While each organisation experiences these matters differently, the literature identifies recurring patterns. Some complaints are driven by misunderstanding of authority or jurisdiction, with individuals believing that persistence will eventually yield a different outcome. Others involve goal displacement, where the original issue has been addressed, but engagement continues in pursuit of acknowledgement or perceived justice (De Silva, 2025).
A smaller subset of matters reflect unusually persistent or fixated engagement. Foundational work by Lester and colleagues (2004) and Mullen and Lester (2006) describes how such complaints can continue even after multiple explanations, decisions or external reviews. Although these cases represent a minority, their impact on system capacity is often disproportionate.
What remains consistent across all categories is that these matters rarely respond to additional explanation alone. Without system-level clarity, repetition can inadvertently reinforce continued engagement.
Impact on conciliation and early resolution practice
The cumulative impact of high-demand complaints on practitioners is increasingly recognised in both legal and dispute resolution scholarship. Aidman and Davies (2025) highlight how a small number of persistent matters can distort workloads, delay outcomes for other parties and place pressure on procedural fairness obligations.
For practitioners, the effects extend beyond time. Repeated exposure to emotionally charged interactions, blame or distrust contributes to fatigue, reduced confidence and burnout risk. Over time, this can erode decision quality and diminish the capacity of dispute resolution systems to function as intended.
Recognising this impact is essential. Managing challenging conduct is not a matter of personal resilience alone. It is a work health and safety issue and a governance responsibility.
The fairness paradox in accessible systems
A central tension identified in the literature is what may be described as the fairness paradox. Dispute resolution systems are intentionally designed to be accessible, informal and responsive. These qualities support trust and inclusion, yet they can also create vulnerability when not balanced with clear boundaries.
De Silva (2025) notes that systems lacking defined closure mechanisms may unintentionally signal that continued engagement is appropriate. In these circumstances, repeated communication can be interpreted as procedural openness rather than finality.
For conciliation practitioners, this creates an ongoing professional challenge. Procedural fairness requires listening and explanation, but it does not require limitless process. Fairness must extend not only to the individual complainant, but also to other system users and to the practitioners delivering the service.
Implications for dispute resolution systems
The research points consistently toward system design rather than individual behaviour as the primary lever for change. Effective responses include:
early resolution triage that clarifies purpose and scope
consistent organisational language about role and authority
structured communication frameworks
clear and respectful closure points
graduated responses to persistent engagement
Sourdin (2017) emphasises that dispute resolution systems must be designed with realistic assumptions about human behaviour, vulnerability and demand. Without this, even well-intentioned systems risk becoming unsustainable. Importantly, these strategies do not limit access to justice. Rather, they preserve it by ensuring systems remain functional and fair for all users.
Learning together through community of practice
One of the strongest protective factors against system strain is collective learning. Communities of practice provide a structured space for practitioners to share experiences, identify emerging patterns and reflect on responses that have been effective or ineffective.
Through shared dialogue, practitioners are able to step back from individual cases and consider broader system dynamics. This collective reflection shifts the conversation from “how do I manage this person?” to “what is this pattern telling us about our system?”
Over time, this learning strengthens professional confidence, supports consistency across teams and contributes to more coherent dispute resolution frameworks.
Lessons for Leaders
Across reflective practice sessions and professional forums, a consistent theme emerges. Frontline practitioners often hold deep insight into system pressure points, yet these insights do not always translate into policy or executive decision-making. This mismatch leads to broken systems and unmanaged stakeholder expectations.
Where leadership understanding is limited, organisations risk relying on individual practitioner resilience rather than structural support. Training alone cannot compensate for unclear authority, inadequate resourcing or misaligned policy settings.
Sustainable dispute resolution requires informed leadership that engages with practitioner experience and recognises dispute resolution as a core institutional function, not simply an operational task. From this understanding, systems can be developed to genuinely support the work of the practitioner, rather than create barriers or bottlenecks.
Conclusion
High-demand and misdirected complaints are not new, nor are they the result of individual failure. They reflect enduring gaps across legal, regulatory and community systems, and the human consequences of those gaps. As I write this article, it seems this age old challenge is more problematic today than ever before.
For conciliation and dispute resolution professionals, the challenge is not to eliminate difficult matters, but to respond in ways that are fair, humane and sustainable. Through reflective practice, shared learning and thoughtful system design, dispute resolution systems can remain accessible while also protecting the people entrusted with delivering them.
References
Aidman, A., & Davies, M. (2025). The burden of self-represented litigants on courts: Implications for justice administration. Adelaide Law Review, 46(2), 1–34.
De Silva, N. (2025). Managing complaint mechanisms for regulatory enforcement: Evidence from human rights institutions. Regulation & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12591
Lester, G., Mullen, P. E., Wilson, B., & Griffin, L. (2004). Unusually persistent complainants. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 184(4), 352–356.
Mullen, P. E., & Lester, G. (2006). Vexatious litigants and unusually persistent complainants and petitioners: From querulous paranoia to querulous behaviour. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(3), 333–352.
Sourdin, T. (2017). Consumer vulnerability and complaint handling: Challenges, opportunities and dispute system design. International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Ready to Strengthen Dispute Resolution Practice Across Your Organisation?
High-demand and complex matters place sustained pressure on dispute resolution teams. Supporting staff requires more than resilience, it requires the right skills, at the right level, delivered within a clear professional framework.
I work with Ombudsman offices, regulators and tribunals to build capability through a three-level training pathway, designed to support staff from entry-level through to advanced reflective practice.
Foundations for complaints, case management and early resolution roles
Ideal for new starters or staff moving into dispute resolution work. This program builds confidence in the fundamental mediation, negotiation and complaints management skills required to manage disputes fairly, consistently and professionally.
Advanced skills for high-conflict and emotionally complex matters
Designed for experienced complaints officers, mediators and conciliators, this training focuses on psychology, neuroscience, trauma-informed practice and legal obligations to support staff working with persistent, high-risk or emotionally escalated interactions.
Reflective practice and professional development for experienced practitioners
For accredited or experienced staff seeking ongoing learning, peer connection and reflective supervision. These facilitated sessions support consistency, confidence and sustainability by connecting professionals across agencies to share insights and strengthen system-level practice.
Whether you are building foundational capability, responding to increasing complexity, or supporting long-term practitioner wellbeing, I can help you design the right pathway for your team.
👉 Get in touch to discuss the most appropriate training level for your organisation.
Hi, I’m Shiv Martin. I’m a nationally accredited mediator, lawyer, conciliator, and conflict management specialist with over a decade of experience working across government, business, and community settings. I support teams to navigate complex and emotionally charged situations through mediation and conciliation, conflict skills training, facilitation, and practical advice on policies and processes. My approach is grounded in law, psychology, and real-world dispute resolution, with a strong focus on clarity, fairness, and workable outcomes.
If you’d like to talk about how I can help you or your organisation, you can get in touch here: 👉 www.shivmartin.com/contact
Comments