After one of the hottest days of the year so far, and being parboiled at court, chambers, or in the office, it was always a ‘big ask’ to expect a crowd for the latest of the Dere Street Barristers Family Team Lecture Series.
However, Ross Lee on Family Mediation, and Karen Lennon’s Private Law Update (together with two CDP) proved to be more than a sufficient draw.
Yesterday afternoon’s session was held at the Royal York Hotel, right in the centre of York and within jogging distance of Dere Street Barristers South premises in Toft Green. From the windows of the Crown Room, the Yorkshire Wheel provided an elevating backdrop to this fascinating lecture.
Ross Lee opened the proceedings with a potted history of the developments in mediation – from the early 1990’s of Lord Irvine and Lord Woolf: Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust (2004) EWCA Civ 576 – to ADS Aerospace v EMS Global Tracking (2012) EWHC 2904. It rapidly became clear that family mediation, from its tentative start, is now becoming central to the process of resolving disputes concerning both children and finances.
Naturally for a Family Group Lecture, Ross Lee’s principal focus was on the development in family law – addressing the contact activity direction to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) under s11A Children Act 1989 and r.3 Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 3A – Pre-Application Protocol for Mediation Information and Assessment 3A. This he set in the perspective of the Law Society’s response to Norgrove. As a group we explored the will of the courts to apply r.3 actively, and concluded that the district bench still has some distance to go.
This raised the question of compulsory mediation – not simply in private family law matters, but in financial remedy proceedings. ‘Expecting’ and ‘requiring’ attendance at MIAMs are two different concepts arising from differing cultures. Attenders appeared to favour an element of compulsion in relation to the mediation process.
Finally, Ross Lee addressed the rise and use of Arbitration in family proceedings – opening the door to the private and confidential resolution of family conflicts. Is this the beginning of ‘private courts’ for family conflicts? Ross drew our attention to AI v MT (2013) EWHC 100 (Fam) where between paragraphs 26-37 Mr Justice Baker considered the use of arbitration in relation to proceedings involving children.
CW v SG and W (Children) concerned applications relating to Parental Responsibility, and when – and in what circumstances – this could or should be terminated. Karen Lennon drew our attention to the conflict of approach between the cases and the difficulty practitioners may encounter in this area.
AB v BB concerned the risks to children of a direct contact order with their father. In this case, mother gave evidence by video link and the court balanced the father’s Article 8 rights with the risks arising from contact. The case has significance arising from Mrs Justice Theis’ test at paragraph 13.
Re H-L (A Child) concerned the appointment of experts and R.25(1), a case featuring Janet Bazley QC and Carly Henley – both members of the Dere Street Barristers Family Team who were commended by the court for “the helpful way in which they have assisted the court in teasing out both the detail of this case and the wider implications of the new rule”.
Importantly, Lord Justice McFarlane prefaced his judgment with these words,
“In preparing the judgments which are now being handed down I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of Sir James Munby P in which he sets out general guidance upon the interpretation of Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 25.1 which restricts expert evidence “to that which in the opinion of the court is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings”. I would wish to associate myself, word for word, with the guidance contained within the President’s judgment in this case. The judgment which I now give seeks to apply the approach described in the President’s judgment to the facts of the present case.
The court made reference to Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent)  EWCA Civ 535,  2 FLR 625, paras , . R25(1) it was said “has a meaning lying somewhere between ‘indispensable’ on the one hand and ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’ on the other hand”, having “the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable.” In my judgment, that is the meaning, the connotation, the word ‘necessary’ has in rule 25.1.
So, now we know exactly what the court expects!
Of importance, Karen Lennon asked us to consider the case in relation to private law proceedings where experts may be required and where the same test would be applied.
This, the second of nine lectures in the current series, was a superb resource, saving those attending a considerable amount of work in sourcing these important cases and materials. Discussions continued after the lecture, until the final pod of the Yorkshire Wheel came to rest – a fitting end to two fascinating lectures.