Held, (1) that rule 3.3.(1) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 mandated the court with a duty to consider whether non-court dispute resolution was appropriate at every stage in proceedings, taking into account whether (a) a family mediation information and assessment meeting (“MIAM”) had taken place; (b) whether a valid MIAM exemption was claimed or mediator's exemption was confirmed; and (c) whether the parties had attempted mediation or another form of non-court dispute resolution and the outcome of that process. Where appropriate, under rule 3.4.1(a) the court might direct that proceedings or a hearing in the proceedings be adjourned for a specified period in order to enable the parties to obtain information and advice about, and consider using, non-court dispute resolution. By virtue of rule 1.1 all those rules were to be read in the context of the court's overriding objective to deal with cases justly having regard to any welfare issues and including the saving of expense and the allocation of an appropriate share of the court's resources. Although the FPR did not give the court power to require parties to engage in non-court dispute resolution, rule changes on 29 April 2024 would promote the court's ability to encourage parties in financial remedy and children proceedings to use natural gaps in the proceedings’ timetable for the purpose of non-court dispute resolution and the agreement of the parties to an adjournment for that purpose would no longer be required. Amendments to the costs sanctions that the court could impose in financial remedy proceedings would take into account conduct relating to a failure either to attend a MIAM or to attend non-court dispute resolution. Going forward, parties to financial remedy and private law children proceedings could expect the court, at each stage of the proceedings, to keep under active review whether non-court dispute resolution was suitable in order to resolve the proceedings (paras 7–9, 15, 16).

(2) That in the present case, had the new FPR rules been in place, and applying the factors more apposite to family disputes from the list set out in authority, the court would have been justified in ordering an adjournment to encourage the parties to engage in non-court dispute resolution, where they were both legally represented and an adjournment would not have prejudiced either party's case for financial relief. In those circumstances, non-court dispute resolution was likely to be effective and appropriate, the costs would be undoubtedly cheaper than those of litigating to a contested hearing and any imbalance between the parties as to resources and bargaining power was not so significant that it might be a source of prejudice to the weaker party. Finally, as neither party had ever tried non-court dispute resolution they could give no convincing reason not to engage in that process (para 18).