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

The buck stops here—local authority fails to avoid legal responsibilities to house 18-year old (R(AAM) v London Borough of Bromley)

Local Government analysis: This case concerned an application for judicial review for an asylum-seeking qualifying young person requesting accommodation from the local authority in circumstances where the local authority declined to accommodate him and instead directed him to asylum support accommodation. The claim was allowed. The court found that that the support powers of the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 were residual and therefore the local authority was not entitled to look to the availability of such support when determining whether to support a young person under sections 24 and 24A of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989 ). Written by Silvia Nicolaou Garcia, associate at Bindmans LLP.

Event to mark the 25th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and to launch the work of the Online Procedure Rule Committee

On 16 July 2025, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Birss gave speeches at an event hosted by the Ministry of Justice and The Law Society. The event marked the 25th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) and launched the public engagement work carried out by the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC).

Family weekly highlights—24 July 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision on post-adoption contact and consideration of the court's jurisdiction to set aside pension sharing orders. Recent judgments on extended orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 and the jurisdictional basis to make an application for a legal services payment order are also considered.

Need to undertake holistic risk assessment. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989—Care orders. Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Re H)

Local Government analysis: This Court of Appeal judgment provides a reminder to judges when making final care orders (or declining to do so as in this case) of the need to undertake a careful and holistic risk assessment within any final judgment. The judgment is a clear reminder of the need to assess risk with reference to the facts and as set against the welfare checklist and to properly analyse all parts of the evidence heard and illustrate this in the judgement. The court determined that the evaluation required a careful analysis of the evidence which regrettably was not carried out in this case. Written by Hannah Markham KC, head of team at 36 Family.