header-logo header-logo

02 September 2014
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Mediation plans fail to please

Family lawyers have cast doubt on the government’s latest attempt to improve mediation uptake. 

Justice minister Simon Hughes confirmed last month that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will, from this autumn, fund a single mediation session for both parties in all cases where one of the people involved is legally aided. This initiative will last for up to three years, with six monthly reviews. Currently, only the legally aided person is funded, which may deter the other partner from agreeing to take part. 

Jo Edwards, chair of family lawyers’ group Resolution, said the MoJ’s plan “will only help those where at least one person is eligible for legal aid and the case is suitable for mediation.

“We know mediation numbers have dropped since the cuts to family legal aid, so we hope this measure will help some people separate in a way that minimises conflict. However, we do not expect this to have a significant impact on the number of couples resolving their disputes out of court.

“We call on government to allocate funding to allow separating couples to understand their legal situation, explore the options available to them and support other dispute resolution processes in addition to mediation which may be more suitable for a wider number of people. We’re disappointed that there are no plans to review marriage or divorce law in this Parliament, in particular fault-based divorce.”

Hughes agreed to the recommendations of an independent Mediation Task Force to boost publicity around mediation, develop a single website for separating couples, add a detachable coversheet to the front of court application forms to promote mediation, and convene an external group to improve mediation practice and ensure it is focused on the best outcomes for any children involved. 

However, he rejected recommendations to fund mediation information assessment meetings (MIAMs) for a further 12 months or to increase fees paid to mediators for carrying out MIAMs.

Separating couples have been legally required to attend a MIAM before proceeding to court, since April 2014, except in certain circumstances. According to the MoJ, the average price of a mediation funded by legal aid in 2013/2014 was £548 per client.

Issue: 7620 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll