03333 231 580
Contact us
Under the current rules, both married and unmarried parties are expected to consider non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) before or during court proceedings. The court can make cost orders against anyone who, in its view, has unreasonably refused to take part in NCDR. Not every case is suitable for non-court dispute resolution, so it’s important to take advice on whether it is appropriate in your situation.
This guide outlines the main NCDR options available and explains when court proceedings may still be necessary.
Direct Agreement
What it is
You and your former partner reach an agreement directly, without professional involvement.
Pros
- No legal or professional fees (however, agreement is not binding until formalised by solicitors).
- Quick, flexible, and private.
- Can preserve a cooperative relationship.
- Useful in simple cases with trust and open communication.
Cons
- Risk of imbalance if one person has more financial knowledge or confidence.
- May overlook key financial or legal issues.
- Agreement is not legally binding unless converted into a Consent Order and approved by the court.
- Not suitable in cases with complex finances/issues, there is mistrust or pressure from one side or where there is domestic abuse.
Mediation
What it is
A neutral mediator helps both parties discuss and negotiate financial arrangements. The mediator does not give legal advice but helps explore solutions.
Pros
- Suitable if both parties are cooperative and prepared to compromise.
- Encourages constructive communication.
- Confidential and flexible.
- Ownership over outcome.
Cons
- Mediator cannot give legal advice or impose a decision.
- Not binding until formalised by solicitors.
- Requires cooperation and full financial disclosure.
- May take several meetings to resolve.
- Not suitable if there is domestic abuse, non-disclosure, or a strong power imbalance.
Solicitor-Led Negotiation
What it is
Your solicitor negotiates with your former partner’s solicitor by correspondence, calls, or meetings.
Pros
- Support and protection of your own legal representative throughout.
- Your solicitor can advise you on what is fair, realistic, and in line with likely court outcomes.
- Negotiations are usually confidential and without prejudice, meaning discussions cannot later be used against you in court.
- Can be combined with other approaches (e.g., round-table meetings or a private FDR).
- Avoids the stress of direct contact between you and your ex.
- Offers flexibility — you can move at your own pace and focus on key issues.
- If an agreement is reached, your solicitor can draft a binding Consent Order to formalise it.
Cons
- Costs can increase if negotiations are prolonged, or positions become entrenched.
- Progress depends on cooperation from the other side.
- If your ex does not engage their own solicitor, this may lead to extra work for your solicitor.
Round Table Meeting (RTM)
What it is
A structured meeting involving both parties and their solicitors (and sometimes experts) to reach an agreement in real time.
Pros
- Allows open discussion and immediate feedback.
- Good for cases close to agreement.
- Often resolves issues in a single day.
- Can be less adversarial.
- A formal agreement can be agreed and signed on the day.
- Can include other professionals (financial advisers, therapists).
Cons
- Requires both sides to voluntarily attend with lawyers.
- Costs for solicitors’ time during the day.
- Not binding unless agreement is formalised on the day.
- Not suitable where one side refuses to engage or disclose finances.
Collaborative Law
What it is
Both parties and their collaboratively trained solicitors sign an agreement not to go to court and meet in joint sessions to find a solution.
Pros
- Emphasis on transparency and problem-solving.
- Supportive and respectful process.
- Can include other professionals (financial advisers, therapists)
- Suitable for cooperative couples who want to stay in control of the process.
Cons
- If the process breaks down, new solicitors must be instructed.
- May take several meetings to resolve.
- Not suitable if there is high conflict or lack of trust.
Private FDR (Financial Dispute Resolution)
What it is
A private hearing before an experienced barrister or retired judge who provides a neutral view of what a court might decide.
Pros
- Quicker and more flexible than court.
- Neutral evaluator gives expert indication.
- Often leads to settlement on the day with agreements being drafted on the day.
- Confidential.
- Suitable where proposals to settle have been exchanged but agreement not reached.
Cons
- Costs for the evaluator and possibly the venue (although often cost neutral given the context of how long the court process can take).
- Not binding unless an agreement follows.
- Not suitable where financial disclosure is incomplete.
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
What it is
A neutral expert gives an independent, non-binding opinion on specific issues (e.g., property division or maintenance), similar to a pFDR.
Pros
- Clarifies likely outcomes.
- Narrows issues early and encourages settlement.
- Cost-effective.
- Suitable for cases with one or two disputed issues.
Cons
- Not binding.
- Both parties must agree to participate.
- Not suitable where one party will not cooperate.
Arbitration
What it is
A private process where both parties agree to appoint an arbitrator (often a senior barrister or retired judge) to make a binding decision, similar to a court order.
Pros
- Final, binding, and enforceable.
- Quicker and private.
- You choose the arbitrator.
- Suitable for complex cases requiring a swift, final decision.
Cons
- Both parties must agree to arbitrate.
- You pay for the arbitrator’s time.
- Limited rights of appeal.
- Not suitable for cases involving hidden assets or incomplete disclosure.
Court Proceedings
What it is
A formal application to the Family Court for a financial order. The court process involves several stages:
- First Appointment – case management and disclosure issues are reviewed.
- Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) – a judge gives an indication to help parties settle. This opinion is non-binding.
- Final Hearing – if no agreement, the judge makes a binding order.
Pros
- Provides a final, enforceable decision.
- Ensures full financial disclosure (with sanctions for non-compliance).
- Appropriate where protection or compulsion is needed.
- Suitable for urgent needs (e.g., freezing assets or interim maintenance).
- Suitable if one party will not cooperate/is unreasonable.
Cons
- Can be lengthy (often 12–24 months).
- Can be expensive and stressful.
- Limited privacy – hearings are increasingly open to media reporting.
- Less control over outcome.
- Not suitable where parties willing and able to resolve matters voluntarily.
We at DMH Stallard LLP have a team of specialist family lawyers who regularly advise upon financial disputes and non-court arrangements. If you would like to talk to one of our expert lawyers, please email us or call us on +44(0)3333 231580.
