header-logo header-logo

MIAM or else

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

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

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