header-logo header-logo

20 June 2014
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

MIAM or else

Are the new Children and Families Act 2014 provisions generally requiring the applicant to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) really going to make any difference? If the applicant flatly refuses to attend and turns up at the first hearing dispute resolution appointment, surely the judge will get on and deal with the case is the usual way? It would be ludicrous to send everyone away.

The new MIAM provisions differ in major respects from the previous provisions of FPR PD3A by imposing a statutory requirement for the applicant to attend a meeting before issuing their application. There is no power to order participation in mediation after the meeting. Where there has been non-compliance, the application will usually be rejected at counter stage. Even if it gets over the counter, an order can be made against both parties to attend the meeting at allocations stage as it can be made on the first hearing dispute resolution appointment. Any exemption from attending which is claimed by the applicant must be scrutinised at or before

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll