Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR)

• Duty to attempt NCDR: Parties and judges must consider NCDR at all stages under FPR 3.3–3.4. The emphasis is on making parties continually consider and where necessary re-consider whether there are any other effective ways to find a resolution outside of the court process.
• Parties will now be required to file a form FM5 at Court and serve it on the other party/parties, setting out their views on the use of NCDR.
• MIAM requirement: A Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting is mandatory before applying to court unless a valid exemption exists.
• Court‑led adjournments: Courts can stay proceedings to encourage NCDR—even without both parties’ consent.
• Costs decisions: Under FPR 28.3 (and PD3A), unreasonable refusals to engage can trigger cost sanctions. The Court now can depart from the “no order as to costs principle” where there is no good reason as to why NCDR options have not been used to resolve the dispute.

The Court’s approach is clear; it should be the last resort, as recent case law shows:

AM v RF [2024] EWFC 288 (B)

• The court adjourned a child arrangements appeal to enable mediation
• The mother eventually engaged too slowly and sparsely, so the judge awarded the father 50% of his costs to be paid by the mother.

NA v LA [2024] EWFC 113

• The proceedings for financial remedy were stayed by the judge, who demanded NCDR engagement
• The Court confirmed that costs sanctions could follow where there was unreasonable refusal to engage in NCDR.

These cases show that the Courts, will scrutinise the parties’ position on NCDR and where appropriate exercise the Court’s power to:

1. Stay proceedings to allow for meaningful resolution attempts
2. Enforce participation in NCDR and potentially impose cost consequences for non-engagement

• You stay in control—tailor-made solutions, not court-imposed orders
• Faster outcomes—especially beneficial in family and child matters
• More private and emotionally constructive
• More cost-effective, when done properly
• More likely to protects relationships, especially when children are involved

NCDR might not be suitable when:

• There are serious safeguarding or domestic abuse concerns
• Urgent court intervention is legally required
• The other party refuses non-court processes without reason
• Full financial disclosure is needed before resolution

We’ll precisely assess your situation to recommend the safest, most efficient path—whether that means NCDR or court.

At Josiah-Lake Gardiner, we ensure full compliance with FPR and proper use of NCDR:

• Explain and arrange a MIAM and advise you on applicable NCDR options best suited to your case
• Recommend and arrange mediation, collaborative law, arbitration, PFDR, or round-table meetings
• File Form FM5 and support your position at the First Directions Appointment

• Represent you at a Private Financial Dispute Resolution (PFDR) and arbitration and advise you on settlement terns

• Keep track of costs risks and protect your position throughout

If court becomes necessary, we’ll present a strong, strategic case—but only after exploring less adversarial routes.

Q. Does solicitor-led negotiation qualify?

A. No — the law requires one of the recognised court-approved methods listed above.

Q. What’s a MIAM?

A. A mediation information and assessment meeting with a qualified mediator to determine whether mediation is workable in your case. Required before making most court applications.

Q. What if the other party refuses mediation?

A. The Court can impose costs or stay the case if refusal is unreasonable.

Q. Can the Court force me into NCDR?

A. The Court can’t order it, but they can stay proceedings, delay hearings, or limit costs recovery until you attempt it.

Wherever possible, choose resolution paths that protect your interests—emotionally, financially and practically. We support you every step of the way, including endeavouring to minimise court involvement, with the aim of safeguarding your future.

Call us on 020 3405 0184

Email enquiries@j‑lg.com