Dispute Resolution Options

• Saves on legal costs
• Easy to arrange
• It can be quick to reach an agreement

• Can be misunderstandings/arguments
• Can damage relationship further if goes wrong
• Can lead to entrenched positions which affect future negotiations
• Could feel under pressure to agree to unfair terms
• Can be difficult to talk face to face
• No advice available during discussions
• Both parties must agree and be willing to compromise

• Clear and avoids misunderstandings
• Able to set out rationale for proposal
• Record of offers and responses
• Can reach a quick resolution
• Can avoid you having to have face to face discussions
• Can include face to face discussions with solicitors present if you prefer

• Can be protracted at times
• Can feel less personal
• Language used can be unhelpful
• Both parties must agree settlement terms and will involve some compromise

• Face to face discussions so more personal
• Mediator keeps discussion focused on the issues
• Can have advice between mediation sessions

• Face to face discussions can be uncomfortable
• Doesn’t provide a binding agreement
• No advice during the discussions
• Can be protracted
• Both parties must agree settlement terms and be willing to compromise

• Usually resolved in half or one day
• Have the benefit of advice and support throughout
• Mediator keeps the discussions focused on the issues
• Solicitors can draw up binding agreement at the end

• Cost of mediator and solicitor involvement
• Can feel pressured
• Both parties must agree settlement terms and be willing to compromise

• Commitment to the process and avoiding court
• Solicitors steer the discussions
• Supported throughout
• Solicitors can draw up a binding agreement

• Both parties must have Collaboratively trained lawyers
• Both parties must agree to the process
• Both parties must agree terms
• Can be expensive because of the length of and number of meetings
• If process breaks down will need to instruct a new lawyer

A solicitor or barrister is employed to provide an opinion either in writing or during an evaluation meeting

• Receive impartial third-party opinion from an experienced family law expert
• Timescales are based around your availability and needs
• Opinion usually helps the negotiations significantly and leads to a settlement

• Additional costs of the evaluator
• Can be costs of representation in an evaluation meeting
• Opinion not binding, still must agree terms

• Like a private court
• Process tailored to issues in your case
• Timescale tailored to your needs
• Can save costs compared to court
• Quicker than court
• Arbitrator can make binding decision
• Get to choose experienced judge
• Consistency of adjudicator
• Confidential process with no media involvement

• Must pay the arbitrators fees
• Both parties must agree to arbitrate
• No ability to enforce compliance with case management steps

• No separate fees for the judges’ time
• Can enforce compliance with orders/timetable
• Both parties do not have to agree to use process, can start it unilaterally
• Process is designed to help reach an agreement before a trial is necessary
• Mediation must be considered before applying unless it is an urgent application

• Can be protracted
• Process can be “clunky” with little ability to take short cuts
• Usually most expensive for legal fees
• No consistency in the judge dealing with the case
• No guarantee that judge comes from a family law background
• Hearings can be cancelled at short notice
• Must consider mediation before applying unless it is an urgent application, even if mediation is not viable
• Proceedings can be reported in the media