Recent changes in family law aim to encourage non-court dispute resolutions.
- From 29 April 2024, parties must justify why non-court dispute resolution methods are unsuitable.
- Expanded Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) includes mediation, collaborative law, and other methods.
- Failure to consider NCDR may result in cost penalties for unreasonable refusal.
- These changes seek to reduce court delays and costs, offering tailored solutions.
Recent amendments to family law are poised to transform the landscape of divorce and separation proceedings, emphasising non-court-based dispute resolutions. From 29 April 2024, judges in financial and private cases will require explanations from parties on why non-court alternatives are not viable. This shift reflects a broader interpretation of Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR), which now includes mediation, collaborative law, early neutral evaluation, and arbitration.
The failure to consider NCDR can have severe repercussions, with judges potentially adjourning hearings to facilitate such approaches. If a party unreasonably refuses to engage in NCDR, they may face a cost order against them, altering the typical rule where each party bears their own costs.
The new regulations indicate that attending a mediation information and assessment meeting is essential where all available options will be evaluated. Exemptions apply to situations involving domestic abuse or emergency applications. This initiative signifies a more thorough engagement with alternative dispute resolution practices, rather than a mere procedural formality.
Existing proceedings, even those initiated before the 29 April 2024 deadline, may be scrutinised to ensure legitimate consideration of NCDR. Judges may demand justifications for why such methods remain inappropriate, relying on correspondence that discusses or dismisses NCDR options.
The emphasis on mediation and related methods aims to reduce the burden on family courts, which have long been overloaded. Historically, there was a requirement to attend a mediation information session, but the current rules encourage a stronger commitment to these alternatives. Non-compliance might result in additional financial liabilities, deterring refusals based on inadequate reasoning.
The possibility of adjournments to accommodate NCDR steps is supported by the widespread delays in the current court system. Courts are expected to apply this power judiciously, ensuring disputes are resolved fairly, swiftly, and cost-effectively. For many family lawyers, this marks a welcome change, allowing for outcomes that are not only faster but also more personalised and less costly.
The new family law rules represent a significant shift towards mediation and other non-court methods, aiming to streamline processes and reduce costs.
