• news-banner

    Expert Insights

“Do I have to mediate?”

Mediation has been available to separating couples in England for decades to address any issues they wish to explore about their finances and/or their children upon relationship breakdown. A trained impartial mediator who is familiar with relationship dynamics, but also with how the law might impact upon the issues, can work with the couple, if they cannot sort matters themselves.

Mediation encourages parties to focus on the future and to make their own decisions and to focus on good communication where possible. One of mediation’s key elements is that it is voluntary. Not free, but nobody is compelled to try it.

The Government could see years ago (and well before Covid and its slowing of the time it takes to get to see a judge), that mediation might reduce court waiting times and reduce the cost of family justice. Legal Aid funding for mediation was initially made available but has largely been eroded.

The greatest concern was that parties were spending a disproportionate amount of funds on the costs of the litigation compared to the issue being argued about.

As a boost to encourage parties to consider trying mediation before rushing to a court to impose an outcome, parties now have to confirm in the court application form itself that they had attended a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM), other than in certain circumstances, such as domestic abuse. In a MIAM, mediators explain the range of other options to address dispute resolution including mediation, arbitration and collaborative work. This step started with good intentions, but has soon become a hurdle to be cleared.

So the court added Family Procedure Rules (FPR 3.3 and 3.4) to remind parties and, importantly their advisers and the judges that:-

FPR 3.3 (1) The court must consider, at every stage in proceedings, whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate.

FPR 3.4 states (so far as is material) as follows:

  1. If the court considers that non-court dispute resolution is appropriate, it may direct that the proceedings, or a hearing in the proceedings, be adjourned for such specified period as it considers appropriate –

    (a) to enable the parties to obtain information and advice about, and consider using, non-court dispute resolution; and     

    (b) where the parties agree, to enable non-court dispute resolution to take place.

  2. The court may give directions under this rule on an application or of its own initiative.

  3. Where the court directs an adjournment under this rule, it will give directions about the timing and method by which the parties must tell the court if any of the issues in the proceedings have been resolved.

  4. If the parties do not tell the court if any of the issues have been resolved as directed under paragraph (3), the court will give such directions as to the management of the case as it considers appropriate.

In the recent case of WL v HL [2021] EWFC B10, Mr.Justice Mostyn, in his role as National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Courts, endorsed Recorder Allen QC’s use of case management in the case and asked for the case to be reported.

Recorder Allen had encouraged the parties to consider and enter non-court dispute resolution and provide him with fortnightly updates which assisted them in reaching settlement. Even though agreement was not ultimately reached in mediation (the parties sorted it themselves), the judge’s management of the dispute took the matter out of the court arena.

It allowed the parties:-

  • to maintain a direct dialogue rather than it being conducted in writing through solicitors (with the potential for polarisation and the inevitable increase in costs)
  • Mediation enabled communication and finding a solution that worked for them as parents of their young child (rather than having one imposed) yet knowing that the judge was in the background

Recorder Allen noted, “ the approach …led to a better, quicker and less expensive outcome than would otherwise have been the case…it furthered the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and in particular the obligation in r.1.1(2)(b) of dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; (d) of saving expense; and (e) allotting to the case an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. My use of these powers was also an exercise of my duty as set out in r.1.4 to further the overriding objective by actively managing cases which includes at r.1.4(2)(f) "encouraging the parties to use a non-court dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure".

Time will tell of the impact of this decision. Despite a Report of the Family Solutions Group (a subgroup of The Private Law Working Group chaired by Mr. Justice Cobb) dated 12th November 2020 there is no data collected on the extent to which these duties and powers are applied across the country. The concern is that if the existing rules are not applied “opportunities to resolve cases out of court are thus lost”.

This article was written by Sarah Anticoni. For more information please contact Sarah at sarah.anticoni@crsblaw.com or call +44 (0)20 7203 5180.

Our thinking

  • Alumni Drinks Reception

    Events

  • Women in Leadership: Prima Facie

    Events

  • Private wealth shuffle: Uncovering the latest relocation trends of fortunes

    Yacine Diallo

    Insights

  • Can Labour deliver 1.5m new homes?

    David Savage

    Insights

  • Setting Standards: The Ciarb Guideline on AI Use in Arbitration

    Dalal Alhouti

    Insights

  • Risky Business: Lessons in clearing up Contractual Confusion in John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd

    Murron McKeiver

    Insights

  • TCC decision on validity of payment and payless notices served simultaneously

    Johnathon Grasso

    Insights

  • Investors' Chronicle quotes Natalie Butler on how to pass on your digital assets

    Natalie Butler

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises long standing client Puma Growth Partners on its investment in LOVE CORN

    Ashwin Pillay

    News

  • Startups Magazine quotes Daniel Rosenberg on the use of AI and technology in M&A

    Daniel Rosenberg

    In the Press

  • Relocation to Portugal: The Portuguese Tax Incentive Regime for Scientific Research and Innovation (NHR 2.0)

    Julia Mauricio

    Quick Reads

  • Estates Gazette quotes Lynsey Inglis on trends in life sciences real estate investment

    Lynsey Inglis

    In the Press

  • Global Insight quotes Shirley Fu, Tom Wong and Victoria Younghusband on trends in corporate activity in China

    Shirley Fu

    In the Press

  • Property Patter: “It’s the economy, stupid”

    Emma Humphreys

    Podcasts

  • Hugh Gunson and Cora Hardy write for Tax Journal on the recent changes to the loans to participators regime under FA 2025

    Hugh Gunson

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys successfully defends Super Fast Trading Limited against Bank of Ireland's summary judgment application

    Caroline Greenwell

    News

  • Katie Bewick and Mike Barrington write for Solicitors Journal on how the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is reshaping UK business practices with new transparency rules

    Katie Bewick

    In the Press

  • The Evolution of Family Office Structures in Hong Kong: A Strategic Guide to Regulatory and Structuring Considerations. Part 2: Structuring Considerations

    Gaven Cheong

    Insights

  • Retail Collection - Episode 3: BDO - Driving Value in an Evolving Market

    James Broadhurst

    Podcasts

  • Bloomberg quotes Piers Master on the suitability of the three-year facility policy designed to attract former UK non-doms

    Piers Master

    In the Press

Back to top