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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll