Infrastructural inadequacy and the accountability of the repeat player

proposals for confronting abusive litigation in light of the multi-door justice system

Abstract

In light of the multi-door courthouse system, this article identifies and analyzes two specific and often overlooked forms of abusive litigation practiced by repeat players, particularly public entities and large corporations: the deliberate underprovision of in-house structures aimed at out-of-court dispute resolution, and the systematic resistance to other extrajudicial pathways. Adopting a deductive approach, based on documentary analysis of normative acts, judicial precedents, statistical reports from the National Council of Justice, and empirical data from Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms, combined with a review of the relevant literature, the study demonstrates that such practices amount to an abuse of procedural rights, overburdening the judiciary and improperly shifting to litigants and to the State operational costs that should be borne by the very entities that generate the disputes. The article further discusses proposals for addressing and sanctioning such conduct, advocating the recognition of a duty to provide adequate dispute resolution infrastructure, as well as a duty of effective engagement with the other doors of the justice system, grounded in principles of good faith and cooperation.