When will the use of the simplified procedure likely be inappropriate?

The use of the simplified procedure is designed for cases that are less complex and involve lower monetary amounts, making it ideal for straightforward disputes or scenarios where quick resolutions are achievable. However, when dealing with high-value claims that require extensive evidence, the simplified procedure becomes inappropriate. This is because high-value claims often necessitate more detailed examination of evidence, deeper legal analysis, and potentially longer hearings to address the complexities involved.

The characteristics of the simplified procedure, such as streamlined processes and limitations on the extent of evidence, may not accommodate the breadth of information and argumentation required in high-value matters. Therefore, opting for this procedure in cases where significant sums are at stake can lead to inadequate consideration of pertinent facts and legal nuances, ultimately undermining the integrity of the adjudication process.

This understanding clarifies why the other scenarios, such as those involving quick resolutions, mutual agreements, or straightforward disputes, do align with the simplified procedure, as they typically do not involve the same level of complexity or evidentiary demands.