What is the difference between the terms defendant and Respondent?
<p>It seems that there is perhaps a trend toward less adversarial terminology, so I wonder if it is that defendant was a more traditional term used exclusively historically, while Respondent has now begun to be used in some contexts as a reflection of this trend toward less adversarial terminology.</p>
<p>Is this at all accurate of a description of how that split has come to be?</p>
<p>In any event, what contexts tend to use which term nowadays? And why?</p>

<p><em>Defendant</em> is normally used as the opposing party to a <em>plaintiff</em>, in a civil cause of action. It also refers to the accused in a criminal matter.</p>
<p><em>Respondent</em> is normally used as the responding party to an <em>applicant</em>, in motions, in certain statutory relief, relief based in judicial review, etc. It is also used to refer to the opposing party to <em>petitioners</em> in various statutory and equitable matters (and in some jurisdictions, there is little to no distinction between petitions and applications).</p>
<p>Before administrative adjudicative tribunals and in alternative dispute processes, <em>respondent</em> is often the party that is not the <em>claimant</em>.</p>
<p>A plaintiff or defendant may <em>also</em> either be an applicant or respondent on various motions at different times throughout the litigation.</p>
<p><em>Respondent</em> also refers to the non-<em>appellant</em> party or parties on appeal.</p>
<p>There are likely other contexts that I am missing. For more, look to the rules, practice directives, or forms for the particular forum and process you are wondering about.</p>

england-and-wales legal-terms