Tribunal

In many but not all cases, tribunal implies a judicial or quasi-judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, in which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates.

In Australia, tribunal generally implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, with a simplified legal procedure, often presided over by a lawyer (solicitor or barrister) who is not a judge or magistrate (often referred to as a member of the tribunal).

In many cases, the lawyers who function as tribunal members do so only part-time and spend the greater part of their time carrying out other aspects of legal practice, such as representing clients.

Tribunals in the Australian judicial system include the following: Every state has a "supertribunal" that covers a wide range of administrative decisions and, in some cases, has civil jurisdiction.

These have been set up to ensure speedy trial and reduce case congestion in the normal courts.

The following tribunals exist within the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China: Lands, Small Claims, Labour, Obscene Articles.

Tribunals are established by resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas to enquire into matters of urgent public importance.

Historically, before the separation of lawmaking, law enforcement, and justice duties in the Netherlands, all sentences were delivered by a tribunal of seven schepenen, or magistrates, appointed by the local count.

Such a tribunal was called a Vierschaar, so named for a rope—or cord—drawn (schaar or scheren) in a four-square dimension, wherein the judges sat on four benches.

"Tribunal" is used in the U.S. generally to refer to courts or judicial bodies, as in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

These quasi-judicial bodies possess regulatory, oversight, and dispute-resolution powers to aid health decision-making and governance.

At the same time, the actual effects of adjunctive tribunals on health services are disputed, as little evidence exists to evaluate their efficacy.

More empirical evaluations are needed to ensure that tribunals operate in a more evidence-based, systematic manner within the health sector.