header-logo header-logo

Separating couples discouraged from court as new FPR era begins

29 April 2024
Issue: 8069 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Mediation
printer mail-detail
Family lawyers will need to continually assess non-court options for clients from this week, after major changes to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) took effect

The FPR changes encourage parties, lawyers and courts to trial non-court dispute resolutions (NCDR) where possible. Judges will have powers to adjourn proceedings so parties can explore alternative dispute options and can sanction parties who refuse to explore alternative options without a valid reason.

Valid reasons under the FPR include domestic abuse. Non-court options include mediation, arbitration, collaborative law and evaluation by a neutral third party.

Welcoming the FPR changes, Rachel Fisher, partner at Stowe Family Law, said: ‘It is hoped it will continue the considerable cultural shift in the divorce space when the new rules are implemented from 29 April 2024, and reduce pressure on overwhelmed family courts. 

‘It has long been acknowledged that lengthy court battles are expensive, time-consuming, and damaging to all involved.  And thankfully, we are seeing a shift away from the court room. Here at Stowe, the number of financial divorce settlements going to court has fallen by 11% since 2018, but there is still some way to go. 

‘The introduction of no-fault divorce in April 2022 has certainly helped, making, in many cases, divorce less adversarial from the off, and helping pave the way for a more amicable resolve.’

However, Fisher added ‘a word of caution: tools such as mediation are rarely appropriate for cases involving domestic abuse, and it is vital that survivors are not forced into inappropriate and unsafe processes to conclude their divorce cases’.

Evie Smyth, associate in the family law team at Russell-Cooke LLP, said: ‘It remains to be seen to what extent the forthcoming changes to the FPR will herald a change in the uptake of NCDR and how readily the courts will employ the new rules where parties fail to engage in NCDR processes.

‘What is clear is that there has never been a more pressing need for NCDR, at a time when family courts are facing a huge backlog of cases and families are waiting longer and longer for a hearing date. It is hoped that the new rules will guide many families who may have otherwise used the courts by default, to properly consider less adversarial and more efficient ways of resolving their disputes.’

Issue: 8069 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Divorce , Mediation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll