header-logo header-logo

24 March 2023
Categories: Legal News , ADR , Family
printer mail-detail

LNB NEWS: MoJ issues consultation on compulsory mediation

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has issued a consultation on resolving private family disputes earlier through family mediation, with the exception of cases involving domestic abuse or child protection concerns. 

Lexis®Library update: The consultation document references the 69% success rate of the mediation voucher scheme and that over 13,500 families having accessed the scheme to reach full or partial agreements. The consultation, which closes on 15 June 2023, is open to the public and the MoJ is particularly interested to hear from organisations representing separating families, family justice practitioners, mediation service providers and individuals who have been through the family courts or mediation.

Commenting on the plans, Sam Townend KC, vice chair of the Bar Council, said:

‘The Bar Council welcomes the consultation announcement and the opportunity it provides to focus on how to address the outstanding case backlogs in the family justice system. The additional money to support mediation is welcome and we will consider the issue of making mediation mandatory. Provision for mediation without allowing for prior legal advice is unlikely to be generally successful and may, in cases where there is a real discrepancy in resources, be detrimental. We look forward to considering the consultation and responding.’

Family lawyer organisation Resolution warned that that unless the measures are underpinned by better signposting to and the funding of early legal advice, separating families could be left to flounder in a failing family justice system. Resolution’s Chair, Juliet Harvey, commented:

‘We welcome anything that can help families avoid court where it’s possible, safe and appropriate for them to do so. Mediation will help many to do this and can be a very effective method of resolving disputes. But it is not right for everyone and works best when it is done voluntarily – forcing parents to choose a route that may not be suitable for them is not the answer. It may leave them without a lasting solution and could mean they end up needing more help and taking up more court time further down the line.’

Source: MoJ: Supporting earlier resolution of private family law arrangements

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 23 March 2023 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk

Categories: Legal News , ADR , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll