header-logo header-logo

09 June 2017
Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News , ADR
printer mail-detail

Innovative arbitration

New family scheme aims to avoid lengthy litigation over forum

An innovative arbitration scheme is to be launched to help international families avoid getting dragged into lengthy litigation on forum.

The International Family Law Arbitration Scheme (IFLAS) aims to help couples work out where family differences should be resolved by ascertaining the country with which they have the closest connection. It is the brainchild of Patrick Parkinson, a solicitor and professor of law at Sydney University, and David Hodson, a solicitor and part time deputy family court judge in London, and was announced last week at the AFCC annual conference in Boston, US.

The scheme, along with an interactive website, is due to go live on 4 September.

Co-founder Hodson said: ‘By using arbitration, with an arbitrator from a country with which neither couple have any connection, using a worldwide common law and closest connection criteria, a couple can more quickly, more cheaply and more satisfactorily resolve differences.

‘Currently when a couple have connections with more than one country there can be a dispute about which country will resolve any differences. This forum dispute is decided in, and by the law of, one of the two countries.

‘This is perceived as an unfair advantage to one of the parties. Some countries around the world are perceived as more likely to say that proceedings should be in their country. This scheme produces a mutually satisfactory outcome.’

The scheme would draw from a pool of arbitrators experienced in international family law disputes.

Co-founder Parkinson said: ‘The use of an arbitrator from a third country is a key part of the scheme ... Having a third country arbitrator is like having an umpire in a sports event who is not from either of the competing countries.’

Issue: 7749 / Categories: Legal News , ADR
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll