NA v LA [2024] EWFC 113: Judge Orders Non-Court Dispute Resolution

Financial Claims: Judges Can Order Parties To Attempt Non-Court Dispute Resolution

As was expected, the court has been quick to flex its muscles and utilise new rules which came into force in April to act as a check on divorcing parties litigating through the courts without properly considering the possibility of resolving financial disputes through mediation or other methods of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR). If you’re considering divorce, note that the courts now have greater powers to require parties to actively engage in NCDR, as a new case demonstrates.

At Osbornes Law, our specialist divorce and financial remedies solicitors work with clients in high value divorces. We are experienced in helping clients reach fair financial settlements outside of the courtroom.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution

Litigation is expensive, stressful and time consuming. Our specialist team works hard to encourage clients to approach the issues around financial matters in the most efficient and cost-effective ways available.

In the absence of a pre-nuptial agreement, agreeing a fair division of assets on divorce can be particularly challenging. Sometimes, we will advise that litigation is the only way in which your financial interests can be properly protected. But we will encourage you to first explore the possibilities of NCDR for two key reasons:

1. In most cases, agreeing a settlement outside of the courtroom reduces animosity and encourages a better relationship between the parties in future and saves considerable legal fees.
2. The Family Procedure Rules r3.4 have given family Judges new powers to stay proceedings and require the parties to engage in NCDR – even if the parties don’t agree.

Court orders mediation

In a recent ‘big money’ case¹, the husband (H) was wealthy and his father a reputed billionaire; while W was a ‘conventional housewife’.

• Read our blog post: Breadwinner or homemaker in divorce. Does it matter?

The court was hearing the return date of ex parte non-molestation and occupation orders (which required H to leave the family home) – and an order for the detention, custody or preservation of two London properties. W had also filed her divorce petition and other applications, including for maintenance pending suit (MPS).

The Judge had earlier suggested to counsel for each party that he was considering staying proceedings to enable them to attempt settlement of W’s financial claim. He observed that it was not an unduly complex case in legal terms, and nothing to suggest the case would be unsuitable for NCDR.

The court is required to consider, at every stage in proceedings, whether NCDR is appropriate, such as mediation, arbitration, collaborative law or third party evaluation.

The Judge concluded that this case was “a paradigm case for the court to exercise its new powers”. NCDR was appropriate and he encouraged the parties to engage in it. This would not only benefit them emotionally and financially, but would also be to the benefit of their children.

Proceedings were stayed, with immediate effect, to allow for NCDR.

The mounting legal costs were undoubtedly a factor in the Judge’s decision. W’s had already reached £125,000 with estimated further costs reaching at least £60,000. (H had not instructed solicitors until two days before the Judgment).

The Judge urged them both to place the costs issue and proportionality of incurring costs at the forefront of their minds – something we frequently emphasise to our clients.

How we can help

It is important to explore and understand the options available to resolve financial claims on divorce before court litigation becomes necessary. The divorce team at Osbornes Law can guide you through your options, partnering with you to protect your interests throughout.

Contact the leading divorce partner Lisa Pepper here; or call us now on

¹NA v LA [2024] EWFC 113