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

Family Procedure Rules 2010 Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) Practice Direction Update No 2 of 2025 has been issued and makes amendments to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA and inserts a new Practice Direction, FPR 2010, PD 36ZI. The new Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 36ZI supplements FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, r 36.2 (Transitional Arrangements and Pilot Schemes) to underpin a pilot scheme for notification to the police when a relevant non-molestation order is made or varied or extended by the court, under a new procedure to notify the police by automated electronic means or by email once a relevant non molestation order is made. The amendments made to FPR 2010, PD 36ZA remove the provisions providing for the court to notify the police of non-molestation orders, or variation or discharge of non-molestation orders, and of service of such orders from its scope in the North Yorkshire Pilot. Notifications of relevant non molestation orders where made will instead be subsumed by the national solution provided by the pilot in FPR 2010, PD 36ZI.

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.