header-logo header-logo

Mediation dispute

03 March 2011
Issue: 7455 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New divorce policy may suffer for lack of mediators

A lack of accredited mediators could stymie the Ministry of Justice’s new policy of compulsory mediation for divorcing couples.

From 6 April, anyone wishing to contest the terms of their divorce will need to first attend a mediation awareness session, with or without their spouse or partner, and must present evidence of this before their case can be accepted by the court. The family proceedings rules have been amended to include the requirement.

David Allison, chairman of family lawyers’ group Resolution, said there was uncertainty as to “mediator capacity”.

“We don’t know how many people will be able to do this from day one. If not, they will tell the court they tried to access a mediator but couldn’t, and that’s all they’ll have to do.

“There is nothing in the protocol about kitemarking of mediators. Most people will be pointed in the right direction by a solicitor, but where people are issuing proceedings themselves they may go to an unaccredited one, there may be rogue mediators.

“It would have been better to do this in a planned way so that enough mediators were in place but the government has acted in haste.”
However, Allison broadly welcomed the proposals, which were announced last week.

“A good solicitor doing their job properly would discuss the option of mediation with a client anyway,” he said.

“I guess that’s something different from going along and having a talk with a mediation assessor. In so far as this raises awareness it is good—there is no doubt more people could mediate than do currently.”

Cases where there are allegations of domestic violence or child protection issues will be exempt from the requirement.

David Norgrove, who is reviewing the family justice system, is due to publish his interim report later this month.

Issue: 7455 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll