Non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) is playing an increasingly prominent role in family law, but greater awareness and confidence across the profession and judiciary remain essential if its full potential is to be realised. That was the clear message from Alex Verdan KC, Her Honour Michelle Corbett, and Sir Andrew McFarlane, who were on the opening panel of Stewarts’ Resolving Disputes Conference held on 7 October 2026.
The panel discussion explored the growing importance of NCDR, particularly arbitration and private Dispute Resolution Appointments (pDRAs), and the opportunities both present for families navigating complex and often highly sensitive disputes.
A recurring theme was the need to challenge lingering misconceptions about arbitration, especially in children cases. While arbitration is well established in financial proceedings, there remains a perception among some practitioners, judges, and magistrates that it is less appropriate where children are concerned. The panellists emphasised that this view is often misplaced. For example, current rules make clear that ‘safeguarding’ cases can be arbitrated subject to the particular circumstances. Equally, while private Financial Dispute
Resolution hearings (pFDRs) are now the norm in financial disputes, pDRAs are rarely used in children disputes, despite their obvious advantages.
The panel suggested further reasons arbitration can be particularly effective are the level of commitment it generates from parties and the control it returns to the parties. Where individuals have jointly selected both the process and the decision-maker, not only are the risks of litigation reduced but there is often a greater willingness to engage constructively and to accept the outcome.
Education, however, remains critical. The discussion highlighted the need for more NCDR training within the Judicial College and among magistrates.
The panellists also stressed the important role practitioners can play in driving change. Advocates were encouraged to remind judges of the court’s ‘overriding objective’ to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost and their ongoing duty under Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules to consider NCDR at every stage of proceedings. Position statements provide an opportunity to identify suitable alternatives to court litigation and to explain the practical benefits they can offer, including the speed with which an arbitrator may be able to determine an issue.
The conversation also focused on arbitration’s flexibility. Procedural disputes, such as disagreements over a timetable, can often be determined quickly and efficiently as standalone issues, avoiding unnecessary delay and court time. More generally, arbitration offers parties significant control over timing, venue, and process.
Her Honour Michelle Corbett reflected on her own experience since retirement, describing arbitration as an “eye-opener”. She noted the contrast between court lists, where judges may manage multiple hearings in a single day with limited preparation time, and arbitration, where tribunals can devote considerably more attention to the issues before them. That additional preparation, combined with a more flexible and comfortable setting, can improve the quality of evidence and the overall experience for families.
The panel concluded by welcoming Stewarts recently introduced Children Arbitration Protocol, which was described as an excellent development. By positioning arbitration as the default method of resolving children disputes, rather than an alternative of last resort, the protocol reflects a growing shift in thinking across the family justice landscape. The message from the bench was clear: with greater awareness, better education, and earlier consideration, arbitration and pDRAs have the potential to become an increasingly valuable tool in resolving family disputes effectively and proportionately.
