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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll