Which Family Non-Court Dispute Resolution Route Should I Use?

Choosing how to resolve things after a separation can feel daunting. Hence, it helps to know there are gentler routes than a courtroom, and that the right one depends on your circumstances. The right non-court dispute resolution route depends on how much control you want over the outcome, how complex your finances or child arrangements are, and whether you and your former partner can work together at all. Mediation suits couples who can communicate with support; collaborative law works where both want a dignified, lawyer-guided settlement; arbitration delivers a binding decision quickly; early neutral evaluation gives an expert view without commitment; and Resolution Together can be cost effective and reduce conflict by sharing one lawyer.

Last reviewed: 25th June 2026

Article summary

• ✓
  Since 29th April 2024, courts in England and Wales actively encourage non-court dispute resolution, and refusing it without good reason can lead to a costs order against you.
• ✓
  Five main routes exist: mediation, collaborative law, arbitration, early neutral evaluation (including private Financial Dispute Resolution), and the Resolution Together one-couple-one-lawyer model.
• ✓
  The route that suits you depends on your priorities around cost, speed, binding outcomes, conflict levels and your ability to communicate with the other party.
• ✓
  A mediated or collaboratively reached agreement on finances must still be converted into a court-issued consent order to become legally binding.
• ✓
  Purcell Solicitors offers all five routes covering Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire.

---

Introduction

Family separation rarely feels straightforward, and in England and Wales, the number of people choosing to resolve financial and children disputes away from the courtroom has grown steadily. The Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2023 came into force on 29th April 2024. They significantly changed expectations around non-court dispute resolution (NCDR). Under rule 3.4(1A), the court “should encourage parties… to undertake non-court dispute resolution” wherever the timetable allows, and it no longer needs both parties’ agreement to do so. Completing a Form FM5, setting out your views on NCDR, is now a standard step before the first hearing in most financial cases.

Under rule 28.3(7) of the same instrument, a failure to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) or to engage with NCDR, without good reason, is a conduct factor the court may take into account when deciding costs in financial remedy proceedings. As Practice Direction 3A states in the Family Procedure Rules practice directions: “the court may take the parties’ conduct in relation to attending non-court dispute resolution into account when considering whether to make an order for costs.” That is a financial risk worth taking seriously.

What are the five main NCDR routes available?

Mediation, collaborative law, arbitration, early neutral evaluation (ENE), and Resolution Together each occupy a different place on the spectrum from “guided negotiation” to “binding decision.” In mediation, a trained, neutral mediator helps both of you reach your own agreement, covering finances, property, pensions, and arrangements for children. The mediator does not give legal advice or make decisions: you retain control of the outcome. In collaborative law, you and your former partner each appoint a trained collaborative lawyer, and all four of you meet in a series of round-table discussions until a settlement is reached. Both routes require a reasonable ability to communicate with each other.

Arbitration operates more like a private court. An arbitrator, often a senior barrister or retired judge, hears both sides and issues an award that the courts will then convert into a consent order. ENE and private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) bring in a neutral expert appointed jointly by the parties to give an opinion on the likely outcome if the matter went to court; that opinion is non-binding, but it often unlocks settlement because both parties hear a realistic assessment from a credible source, often a barrister or retired judge. Resolution Together is a newer model in which one lawyer acts for the couple rather than for each party, which can keep costs lower when the issues are agreed in principle.

How do the routes compare across key factors?

The table below sets out how each route performs across the factors most readers ask about before choosing.

Route	Who decides	Binding outcome	Approximate cost	Speed	Best for
Mediation	You and your former partner	No, needs consent order	Lower (hourly sessions)	Weeks to a few months	✓ Couples who can communicate ✓ Finances and/or children arrangements
Collaborative law	You and your former partner	No, needs consent order	Mid-range (four professionals in the room)	Weeks to months	✓ Those wanting lawyer support throughout ✓ Preserving relationships
Arbitration	Appointed arbitrator	Yes, award enforced by court	Mid to higher (arbitrator’s fee plus legal costs)	Weeks once appointed but can be longer	✓ Complex finances ✓ Need for a binding decision without court delay
Early neutral evaluation / private FDR	Non-binding expert opinion	No, but strongly informs the settlement	Varies (one-day hearing; judge or barrister)	A few weeks	✓ Stalled negotiations ✓ Testing the strength of a position
Resolution Together	A solicitor advises the couple	No, needs consent order	Lower (one lawyer, shared cost)	Weeks or longer	✓ Amicable couples with broadly agreed terms

No route is universally superior. In my experience, the right choice turns on the client’s specific situation, and it is common to combine routes, for instance, attending an ENE to understand the likely court outcome, and if an agreement is not reached appointing an Arbitrator to make a decision.

What happens if you cannot agree through NCDR?

NCDR does not guarantee agreement, and the court remains available when it fails or is genuinely unsuitable. PD3A confirms: “While the FPR do not give the court the power to require parties to attend non-court dispute resolution, the court does have a duty to consider, at every stage in proceedings, whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate.” The court therefore keeps the question of NCDR open at every stage of proceedings, well beyond the opening application.

Recognised exemptions from the MIAM requirement include a history of domestic abuse, urgency, a child protection concern, or a previous MIAM within the last four months. These are set out in the Children and Families Act 2014 and the procedural rules. If any of these apply to you, a solicitor can help you document the exemption correctly so that the court accepts it. Attempting to use an exemption that does not genuinely apply, simply to avoid NCDR, carries the same costs risk as an outright refusal.

How do you make a mediated agreement legally binding?

A mediated agreement on finances is not enforceable. Once you and your former partner reach a financial settlement, whether through mediation, collaborative law, or direct negotiation, the terms must be set out in a consent order, which the court then approves. Only at that point does the agreement acquire the same legal force as a contested court order. This step matters because without a consent order, either party can return to court at any time to make a financial claim, even after a final divorce order has been made.

Arrangements for children reached through mediation can be recorded in a parenting plan, which is not a court order. If both parties later disagree about the plan, a court application or NCDR process is needed. Where a more robust arrangement is required from the outset, for instance, where trust is limited, your solicitor may advise applying for a child arrangements order to formalise the terms.

When is arbitration the right choice for a financial dispute?

Arbitration is the right choice when you need a binding decision but want to avoid delay. Arbitration can resolve a financial dispute much more quickly than the Court because the arbitrator’s schedule, rather than the court’s listing backlog, sets the timetable. Family law arbitration is available for financial disputes on divorce and civil partnership dissolution, and increasingly for disputes between unmarried cohabitants. The arbitrator’s award is final and binding on both parties, subject only to a very narrow right of appeal on points of law. Pauline Purcell is an IFLA-accredited family law arbitrator and can advise whether your case is suitable.

How does early neutral evaluation differ from arbitration?

Early neutral evaluation and private FDR give you an expert opinion without surrendering the final decision to anyone. A neutral evaluator, typically an experienced barrister or a retired judge sitting privately, reviews the papers and hears short submissions from both sides, then delivers an assessment of how a court is likely to decide the matter. That assessment is not binding: you remain free to accept or reject it, and the evaluator’s views cannot be referred to in any subsequent court proceedings.

The value of ENE lies in its ability to break deadlock. Where one or both parties have an unrealistic view of their position, hearing an authoritative assessment often brings negotiations back on track without the cost and delay of a full contested hearing. Early neutral evaluation is particularly suited to cases where there is a genuine legal or valuation dispute, such as the treatment of pre-marital assets, a business valuation, or a pension-sharing question, that has prevented settlement.

What is the Resolution Together model and who is it for?

Resolution Together is a one-couple-one-lawyer approach in which a single solicitor provides legal advice to both parties jointly, rather than acting adversarially for one of them. It is the lowest-cost solicitor-led option because both parties share the legal fee, and it avoids the dynamic of competing legal teams. The model works best where both people broadly agree on the outcome and want qualified guidance to document it correctly and spot any issues before finalising a consent order.

It is not suitable where there is a significant imbalance of power, a history of domestic abuse, or a genuine dispute about the financial or child arrangements. In those circumstances, independent legal advice is the only appropriate approach. Resolution Together at Purcell Solicitors is offered by the same team that provides the full spectrum of NCDR services, so if your needs change as discussions progress, the firm can adapt its support.

 

Talk to Purcell Solicitors

Purcell Solicitors has supported families across Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire on every NCDR route for more than 30 years, always with care and without judgement. To talk through which process suits your circumstances, contact the team through the contact page or call: +44 (0)1908 693000