Why might the decisions made at a tribunal be considered potentially unfair?

The reasoning behind choosing the option related to financial resources for representation emphasizes how disparities in access to quality legal representation can affect the fairness of tribunal decisions. When individuals or groups have access to more financial resources, they can afford better legal advice and representation, which can lead to unequal advantages in presenting their case. This scenario can create a situation where the outcomes of tribunal cases are swayed by the resources available to each party rather than on the merits of the case itself.

In contrast to this, the other options do not carry the same weight in addressing potential unfairness in decision-making. While tribunals might have less formal procedures compared to courts, this informality does not inherently lead to unfairness; rather, it often aims to make justice more accessible. The claim that more skilled negotiators always win suggests a focus solely on negotiation skills, which is different from acknowledging structural inequalities facing some parties. Lastly, dealing exclusively with minor cases does not directly correlate with fairness, as the nature of the cases does not diminish the importance of equitable representation and resources.