Judicial and litigant perceptions in Dutch court cases: Perceptions of outcome importance overlap, perceptions of procedural justice diverge

The current paper aims to provide insight into judges’ perceptions of how fairly they treat litigants and how important case outcomes are to litigants, and whether these perceptions relate to litigants' perceptions of procedural justice and outcome importance. Respondents were litigants involved in bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, and administrative law cases and judges handling these cases at the district court of the Mid-Netherlands. Both litigants and judges indicated outcome importance and procedural justice. Litigants also indicated their trust in judges. Multilevel analyses using hierarchica... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Grootelaar, H.A.M.
van den Bos, K.
Ybema, J.F.
Ansems, L.F.M.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2022
Schlagwörter: Judges / Litigants / Outcome importance / Procedural justice / Anthropology / Sociology and Political Science / Law
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27457327
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/423049

The current paper aims to provide insight into judges’ perceptions of how fairly they treat litigants and how important case outcomes are to litigants, and whether these perceptions relate to litigants' perceptions of procedural justice and outcome importance. Respondents were litigants involved in bankruptcy, landlord-tenant, and administrative law cases and judges handling these cases at the district court of the Mid-Netherlands. Both litigants and judges indicated outcome importance and procedural justice. Litigants also indicated their trust in judges. Multilevel analyses using hierarchical regression showed a positive association between judicial and litigant perceptions of outcome importance and no significant association between judges' and litigants’ perceptions of procedural justice. This indicates that whereas judges and litigants largely agreed on how important case outcomes were, their views about how fairly judges handled cases diverged. These insights enhance our understanding of linkages and discrepancies between judges' and litigants' views on important aspects of the legal system.