{"id":19238,"date":"2024-04-29T16:21:18","date_gmt":"2024-04-29T15:21:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.goodmanray.com\/?p=19238"},"modified":"2025-02-04T12:55:00","modified_gmt":"2025-02-04T12:55:00","slug":"changes-to-the-family-procedure-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.goodmanray.com\/pt\/news\/2024\/04\/changes-to-the-family-procedure-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Altera\u00e7\u00f5es ao Regulamento de Processo de Fam\u00edlia"},"content":{"rendered":"

On April 29th<\/sup>, changes to the Family Procedure Rules will be introduced.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Couples in dispute need to be aware of these changes and the possible cost implications if they fail to follow the expectations of the new rules, namely that set procedures are followed to try to reach a pre-court settlement. A major change is the duty to actively consider and explore non-court dispute resolution (also often know as ADR) before going to Court and during the Court process. This will apply to private children law issues as well as financial matters arising from div\u00f3rcio<\/a>, judicial separation, or dissolution of a civil partnership.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other changes include a timely change to refer to what used to be called \u2018domestic violence\u2019 to \u2018viol\u00eancia dom\u00e9stica<\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>\"Family
\n

<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

What are the Family Procedure Rules (FPR)?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Family Procedure Rules govern the procedures used in family courts in England and Wales. The forthcoming changes will change the definition of non-court dispute resolution in the FPR. Section 2.3(1)(b) provides an updated definition of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) stating that \u2018non-court dispute resolution\u2019 means methods of resolving a dispute other than through the court process, including but not limited to mediation, arbitration, evaluation by a neutral third party (such as a private Financial Dispute Resolution process) and collaborative law\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

O que \u00e9 non-court dispute resolution (NCDR)<\/a>?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

NCDR<\/a> involves methods of dispute resolution other than through the court process. Many NCDR<\/a> methods place the emphasis on parties reaching an outcome together, instead of leaving it in the hands of a third party. It is often seen as a more amicable way of reaching a solution, where individuals remain in control of the outcome and avoid the adversarial nature of Court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are four main methods of NCDR referred to in the FPR:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
<\/span>\"Miams
\n
Media\u00e7\u00e3o<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Mediation is a process by which you will have discussions with your former partner,  together with a trained mediator, to discuss future arrangements. The discussions are confidential, which allows a \u2018card on the table\u2019 approach to find compromise. Mediators are neutral and will help you try and reach an agreement. Mediation can include confidential discussions with children, having lawyers present or hybrid mediation. We offer all of these options at Goodman Ray.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ler mais...<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/span>\"Vacancy
\n
Direito colaborativo<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Collaborative law involves lawyers and individuals working together away from the Court process to sort through problems relating to your separation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each person will appoint their own collaboratively trained lawyer, the parties will then meet together to work through arrangements. The discussions are confidential and both lawyers and individuals will be present for almost all discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ler mais...<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
<\/span>\"Solicitor
\n
Evaluation by a neutral third party<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Evaluation by a neutral third party, involves the parties appointing an independent and impartial evaluator to provide an objective and unbiased view. This typically happens before Court in order to help individuals make informed decisions having been given an indication as to how the law may apply to their case if <\/em>they decided to go to Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ler mais...<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/span>\"Mediation
\n
Arbitration<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Arbitration involves you and your partner appointing an arbitrator, often with the help of a lawyer, who can also advise and assist you throughout this process. The arbitrator will assist you at all stages, eventually deciding after hearing both cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ler mais...<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

There are other methods of NCDR that we offer which are not explicitly referred to. These include round-table meetings as the one lawyer-two client model, where two individuals see a neutral solicitor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what changes will we be seeing?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Changes to MIAMs<\/a> \u2013 3.9(2)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

One of the changes is that typically both parties will be the requirement for applicants to have attended a Mediation Information & Assessment Meeting (MIAM)<\/a> prior to attending court, save for very limited circumstances. Mediators will no longer be able to provide exemptions in MIAMs to applicants wanting to go to Court- the applicant will now need to justify why NCDR is not suitable when making their applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the MIAM<\/a>, the mediator must indicate the methods of NCDR that will be most suitable to the parties, as well as providing information to the parties relating to how to pursue these methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More individuals will be required to attend MIAMs before Court, both to consider mediation as well as to be informed about other methods of NCDR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Form to be completed – 3.3(1A)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Parties will also now have to fill out a form prior to court proceedings, expressing their views on using methods of NCDR, when resolving issues raised in court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court will expect parties to justify why they are at Court, their views on\/experience of NCDR in the case, and whether it may be suitable.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is hoped that this form will promote the use of NCDR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adjournments – 3.3(1)(b) and 3.4(1A)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Prior to the introduction of the FPR amendments, a court could adjourn a case for parties to look into NCDR, if the parties agreed.  The new rules, however, have removed the need for agreement. Instead, the court will now be able to adjourn without the two parties\u2019 agreement during financial proceedings, where the timetabling allows sufficient time for parties to explore NCDR. This power is in place throughout the case.  If individuals do not try NCDR before going to Court or if they do not remain open to it during the case, they can expect the Court to potentially adjourn the application, and even make costs orders against them in financial remedy cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cost sanctions \u2013 28.3(7)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The changes also indicate the possibility of incurring a cost sanction in financial remedy cases if you apply to court without exploring NCDR, provided that you are unreasonably obstructing NCDR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means if parties have not made any effort to explore methods of NCDR, they may incur a costs order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A summary of the changes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

To summarise, parties now have a far greater obligation upon them to consider and pursue NCDR. This is something the courts are firmly behind as was demonstrated in the recent case of Re X (Financial Remedy: Non-Court Dispute Resolution)<\/a>, whereby Mrs Justice Knowles made it clear had the new FPR rules been in place an adjournment would have taken place to encourage NCDR in circumstances whether neither party had tried in before going to Court or during the Court process. .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To prevent parties incurring cost sanction or adjournments they should now have to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n