header-logo header-logo

Early advice, not compulsory mediation

21 June 2023
Issue: 8030 / Categories: Legal News , Mediation , Family , ADR , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have firmly rejected Ministry of Justice (MoJ) proposals for mandatory mediation in family cases.

The MoJ consultation on ‘Supporting earlier resolution of private family law arrangements’, which closed last week, suggested mandatory mediation for all suitable family cases—excluding any involving allegations of domestic abuse. Judges could order parents to make a reasonable attempt to mediate, with powers to impose financial penalties where parties acted unreasonably. Mediation for both children and finance arrangements would be fully funded by the government.

However, the proposals were rejected by family lawyers’ group Resolution, as well as the Law Society. Both groups advocated expanding access to legal aid and early advice for all, noting this can often make separating couples more realistic, deterring them from pursuing unreasonable litigation.

Divorce solicitor Katie McCann, managing partner at Lowry Legal, said: ‘The opposition to the government's position on this is totally valid.

‘Mediation needs the consent of both parties participating in the process for it to work. It cannot be forced.

‘Some people are in domestically abusive relationships—no matter their level of assets, this should be vetted at an early stage. The removal of legal aid from this space has, over a number of years, eroded access to justice. It is arguably the removal of this funding which has led to the rise in litigants in person and in turn the bottleneck of cases that the courts are seeing, which has resulted in the formulation of this proposal from the government.’

Grant Cameron, national chair of Resolution, said: ‘We have a real concern that forcing couples into mediation could reduce the likelihood of success.

‘It also raises concerns where the risk of domestic abuse, particularly controlling or coercive behaviour, or other safeguarding issues are at play.’

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘We are pleased the government is seeking early resolution for families.’

However, she warned that ‘no form of dispute resolution should be mandatory’.

Gemma Davison, partner at Stowe Family Law, said mediation ‘is not an easy option, nor one that is appropriate for everyone and should not be mandatory to achieve a political agenda’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll