Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
what extent can the courts interfere with a family arbitral award? Suzanne Kingston, partner at Withers LLP, considers the decision in DB v DLJ, and explains why Mostyn J’s findings are likely to make family arbitration an increasingly popular
In DB v DLJ  EWHC 324 (Fam), the Family Division following an application by the husband, held that an arbitration award be made an order of the court following the parties’ family financial dispute resolution under the family
law arbitration scheme. This case deals with the routes of challenge and appeal for family arbitral awards, in the context of an application by a husband to show cause why the arbitral award should not be made into a court order.
It is significant for a number of reasons:
The court decided that the arbitral award was a ‘thorough, conscientious and clear piece of work. Its quality is a testament to the merit of opting for arbitration’ and that it should be made into a financial order.
The award provided for the parties’ property and cash to be shared equally. The wife had argued that the net figure taken by the arbitrator for the value of her home in Portugal was £373,797, when the correct figure at the time should have
been £152,306, owing to subsequent planning developments and decisions. She argued that this was a vitiating mistake or alternatively, by virtue of later events, the value had fallen.
The judge held that the existence of a safety net provided by periodical payments provision in the arbitral award inevitably led him to exercise his discretion to refuse to interfere with the arbitrator’s award, even if the threshold requirements
of proof or mistake or supervening event were demonstrated (which they were not). However, if he was wrong on this, the planning decisions which would arguably affect the value of the property did not constitute an unforeseeable later event which
invalidated the decision of the arbitrator (as the planning application was already pending). The wife’s case on mistake was stronger, but Mostyn J was not satisfied that the wife with due diligence could not herself have discovered that the
planning eventualities might well arise.
Very helpful. A highly respected judge has scrutinised the family arbitral scheme under the Institute of Family Law Arbitration (ILFA), found an arbitral award to have been of exemplary quality, endorsed and promoted family arbitration for clients, pinned
down precisely the very limited routes to challenge such awards and set out the procedural routes so to do.
An in-depth review of case law relating to set aside applications generally has been provided, whether based on mistake or Barder principles and this is helpful in cases involving negotiated agreements as well as arbitral awards.
It is clear now that if a challenge to a family arbitral award is made in the future, the application will be heard by a High Court judge at the soonest opportunity for speedy determination.
In terms of grey areas, Mostyn J seemed to suggest in his judgment that in most cases parties to a family arbitration will wish to see the award contained in a court order, especially if the award provides for a clean break or pension sharing order. Certainly,
unmarried couples opting for arbitration in, for example, a Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 case may not need to commute their arbitral award into a court order which is yet another benefit of arbitration. However, we would advise
all arbitral awards in financial remedy cases following divorce or civil partnership dissolution be ratified by the court to ensure the parties have complete and ongoing legal certainty and protection. The proposal to amend the ARB1 Form also deserves
further debate: the family court’s duty to consider any arbitral award (or any financial agreement), in accordance with the factors set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, derives from that statute, not from any agreement between
the parties. The acknowledgment of such duty in the ARB1 Form does not, as we see it, extend the court’s powers in any way.
Clients and lawyers can be confident that any previous concerns they may have had about ways in which family arbitration awards may be interfered with by the court have been laid to rest by this judgment. It will be even more difficult to renege from
the terms of an arbitral award than a negotiated agreement, and in most cases any challenge will either have to fall under the grounds contained in AA 1996, or, in the rarest of cases, the very limited scenarios circumscribed by this case under the
grounds of mistake or a truly unforeseeable event. The court is not a rubber stamp, but then family arbitration ‘is not a dress rehearsal: it is the first and last night of the show’ (per Lewison LJ in Fage UK Ltd & Anor v Chobani UK Ltd  EWCA Civ 5).
This case demonstrates how arbitration is growing apace in family law. There are now over 220 trained family financial arbitrators and last weekend saw the first children arbitrators trained with a view to the Children Arbitration Scheme being launched
in July 2016. The President has recently encouraged members of the profession to train as arbitrators in the face of modernisation of the court system and a declining need for court hearings in the future. Our prediction for the future is that arbitration
will grow even more in popularity as the optimal choice for separating couples in the weeks and months to come.
Suzanne Kingston is widely known for her expertise in all aspects of family work, in particular the resolution of complex financial issues for high net worth individuals. Her cases often have an international element and she has considerable experience in dealing with prenuptial agreements and cohabitation issues. Suzanne is a qualified collaborative lawyer and trains collaborative law for Resolution. She has been described as the 'queen of mediation, collaborative law and arbitration', spearheaded the arbitration training for family lawyers, and is herself an accredited arbitrator.
Interviewed by Jenny Rayner.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234