NA vs LA

This case concerned the application of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) in family proceedings, specifically in the context of financial remedies and the recent amendments to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR).

TLDR:

• NA filed for financial remedies against LA.
• The court emphasized the use of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR).
• Important revisions to FPR Part 3 and Part 28 were considered.
• The court stayed the proceedings to encourage NCDR.

The applicant, NA, filed for financial remedies against the respondent, LA, in the Family Court. The case was heard by Mr. Nicholas Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The hearing took place on 23rd May 2024, with the judgment handed down remotely on 24th May 2024.

The case centered around the application of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) in family proceedings, particularly in light of recent amendments to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) that came into effect on 29th April 2024. These amendments aimed to encourage the use of NCDR in family cases, removing the previous requirement for both parties to agree to such a process.

Mr. Nicholas Allen KC highlighted the importance of the revisions to FPR Part 3 and Part 28, noting that the court now has a duty to actively manage cases and encourage the use of NCDR where appropriate. The court can now adjourn proceedings for NCDR without the need for both parties' agreement, provided the timetabling of proceedings allows sufficient time for these steps to be taken.

In this case, the court considered the recent amendments and the accompanying Practice Direction 3A, which emphasizes the court's duty to consider NCDR at every stage of the proceedings. The court noted that in financial remedies cases, the power to encourage NCDR is backed by an amendment to the costs rules, allowing the court to consider a party's failure to attend NCDR when making cost orders.

The court reviewed the facts of the case, including the ex parte non-molestation and occupation orders made on 14th May 2024, and the subsequent actions taken by both parties. The court noted that the applicant, NA, had filed a divorce petition and an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS) and interim periodical payments (IPPs), which were yet to be listed for hearing.

During the hearing, the court considered the views of both parties' legal representatives regarding NCDR. The court noted that the respondent, LA, was open to NCDR, while the applicant's representative emphasized the need for financial disclosure before engaging in NCDR. The court, however, disagreed with this view, stating that NCDR processes often include provisions for financial disclosure.

The court ultimately decided to stay the financial proceedings to encourage the parties to engage in NCDR. The court directed the parties to provide a joint letter by 4th July 2024, detailing their engagement with NCDR, any resolved issues, and their respective proposals for the way forward.

The court emphasized the importance of considering NCDR at every stage of the proceedings, as mandated by the recent amendments to the FPR. The court also highlighted the need for parties to keep the issue of costs and proportionality in mind, given the significant legal costs already incurred in this case.

In conclusion, the court's judgment in NA vs LA underscores the importance of non-court dispute resolution in family proceedings and sets a precedent for future cases. The court's decision to stay the proceedings and encourage NCDR reflects the recent changes to the Family Procedure Rules and the court's duty to actively manage cases to achieve fair and efficient outcomes.

Legal representatives: Miss Deborah Bangay KC (instructed by Rayden Solicitors) for the Applicant, Miss Sarah Phipps KC (instructed by Osborne Clarke) for the Respondent

Judicial Panel: Mr. Nicholas Allen KC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 113