header-logo header-logo

20 June 2014
Issue: 7611 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

MIAM or else

Are the new Children and Families Act 2014 provisions generally requiring the applicant to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) really going to make any difference? If the applicant flatly refuses to attend and turns up at the first hearing dispute resolution appointment, surely the judge will get on and deal with the case is the usual way? It would be ludicrous to send everyone away.

The new MIAM provisions differ in major respects from the previous provisions of FPR PD3A by imposing a statutory requirement for the applicant to attend a meeting before issuing their application. There is no power to order participation in mediation after the meeting. Where there has been non-compliance, the application will usually be rejected at counter stage. Even if it gets over the counter, an order can be made against both parties to attend the meeting at allocations stage as it can be made on the first hearing dispute resolution appointment. Any exemption from attending which is claimed by the applicant must be scrutinised at or before the first hearing and, where not validly claimed, an order

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll