Introduction >> Financial Arrangements |
|
Step 3 | The parties then attempt to negotiate an agreement. To help them negotiate they may use the services of mediators or solicitors. The judge at a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) also provides an opinion that often helps to close negotiations. |
Overview:
Depending on the circumstances, negotiating the financial settlement can range from being straightforward, to being protracted and bitterly contested. The aim of the negotiation is to arrive at a proposed settlement that both parties agree to, and that a court views as being fair. There are several different approaches to negotiation which are discussed below. In general, effective negotiation can only really begin once each side has provided the other with full financial disclosure (see previous step). |
Process:
Direct (informal) negotiation between the divorcing couple Mediation Professional mediators provide a service whereby they facilitate a series of discussions between the parties in dispute, with the aim of reaching an agreement. Mediation can be used for child contact disputes as well as financial disputes. The mediation process provides a formal framework which encourages a level headed discussion which might not be possible directly between the parties. Specialist Family Law mediators have training or past experience in family law, and so are able to guide the discussion to keep it focussed on the relevant issues and avoid discussion on irrelevant topics. For example in general the conduct of either party (adultery, drinking, unreasonable behaviour) is not relevant to the financial settlement, and so the mediator will try to prevent the conversation returning to these topics. Collaborative Lawyers In response to growing public concern over the costs of divorce, Collaborative Law has emerged in recent years as a new option for reaching an agreement. This relies on both parties using a solicitor who agrees to use a collaborative approach, and specifically agrees to reach a deal view negotiation rather than through court action. The basic approach is that once full disclosure has been done, each party comes to the table with an opening position (based on the advice of their solicitor). The outstanding issues/gap between the two parties is identifed, and then a series of face to face meetings are held at which the parties discuss the issues/gaps and make compromises until agreement is reached. The approach is less confrontational than the adversarial court route and promises (but doesnt guarantee) to be less expensive. Adversarial Process The traditional adversarial process involves each party fighting for the best financial outcome via solicitors/barristers and the courts. One party, typically the weaker financial party, applies for Ancillary Relief through the courts and the court drives a timetable for obligatory financial disclosure and then a series of court hearings at which the parties present their case to a judge. This process typically culminates at a Financial Dispute Resolution hearing at which a judge, after hearing the case and evidence presented by each side, offers a view on what the court feels would be a fair settlement. The majority of cases that go to the FDR are settled on the day of the FDR or shortly after. In the small minority of cases no agreement can be reached and so the case moves on to a Final Hearing at which the court will hear evidence before imposing a settlement via a court order. |
Frequently Asked Questions:
Useful resources for this step:
{xtypo_info} Useful Links for Negotiation |