Non-court dispute resolution

Unless it is clearly inappropriate to do so family lawyers should explain alternative methods of resolving family law disputes outside the court process and advise on the benefits and/or limitations in the client’s specific case plus the role of the solicitor in supporting the non-court dispute resolution process where appropriate. Non-court dispute resolution was previously known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The potential suitability of alternative methods of dispute resolution should be kept under review throughout a case.

See Practice Notes: Introduction to non-court dispute resolution and Non-court dispute resolution glossary.

Mediation information and assessment meetings (MIAMs)

Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3, together with FPR 2010, PD 3A, provides for all potential applicants to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) before making certain kinds of applications to obtain a court order in relevant family proceedings, save where an exemption applies. The court will also expect the prospective respondent to attend a MIAM. The court must consider, at every stage in proceedings, whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate and has a general power to adjourn proceedings in order

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Court of Appeal allows Council’s appeal in connection with Judicial Review claim (Surrey County Council v R (on the application of BC)

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal (‘Court’) allowed the appeal brought by Surrey County Council (SCC) in connection with the judge’s decision dated 15 December 2023 permitting a claim for judicial review and set aside the judge’s three declarations dated 20 December 2023. One of these declarations being that SCC owed a duty to accommodate BC, a 17-year-old child, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court determined the judge was wrong to conclude that a duty was owed under section 20 of the Act, or that BC was in fact being accommodated by SCC under section 20 and opined that the judge had erred in determining that SCC had acted with (Wednesbury) unreasonableness. This case provides a solid overview of the timeframes involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when a local authority is dutybound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Written by Paul Ridout, partner at HCR Law.

Scope of court’s powers under section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (Re E (Section 37 Direction))

Family analysis: This case considered the interpretation of section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) empowering the court to direct a local authority to carry out an investigation into the child’s circumstances, and the consequential power to make interim public law orders under ChA 1989, s 38(1)(b). The question arising on appeal was whether those powers extend to any child about whom the court becomes aware during the proceedings, or only to a child who is the subject of proceedings’. The Court of Appeal found that the language of ChA 1989, s 37(1) refers to proceedings in which a question arises for determination about the welfare of a child. The court therefore held that the judge was not entitled to make a ChA 1989, s 37 order in relation to non-subject children and that there was no power to make an interim public law order in respect of a non-subject child. In any event, the making of the interim supervision order had been procedurally unfair. Olivia Magennis, barrister at 1GC|Family Law, looks at the implications.

Family weekly highlights—3 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 claims. Recent judgments on inherent jurisdiction and summary return, the Thwaite jurisdiction and setting aside pension sharing orders are considered.

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.