Landmark decision for Family Law arbitration

The Court of Appeal allows an appeal of a family law arbitration award for the first time, and gives guidance on the procedure to be followed. Alistair Myles represented the successful Mr Haley in this landmark decision.

It had previously been the case that the bar to challenge a family law arbitration award was set very high, and akin to the very limited rights afforded to commercial arbitrations. The Court of Appeal clarified that this was not the case – matrimonial finance arbitration awards should be subject to the same rights of appeal as if the case had been heard in court. The Court of Appeal recognised that family law cases are different to commercial cases, where the parties to an arbitration simply wish to achieve finality. In matrimonial finance cases, in approving any arbitration award, the family division is bound by statute to ensure that, for example, the needs of any children are met. The Court of Appeal gave its full backing to the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA) scheme.

This is a seismic change and has removed any potential deterrent parties may have felt in adopting arbitration as an alternative to conventional litigation.

Alistair Myles stated, “I am extremely happy for Mr Haley that the potential unfairness of the arbitration award has been recognised by the court, and I hope that we can now reach a resolution without further court proceedings. I am a strong advocate of family law arbitration and I hope that following this decision, more people involved in family law disputes may opt for this route, which offers many benefits over traditional court proceedings, not least speed, certainty of tribunal and privacy. With the tests for challenging a decision now being the same, there is now no advantage to people using what is a sadly over-burdened court system, particularly as the courts face the challenge of a backlog of cases following lockdown”.

Counsel for Mr Haley were James Ewins QC and William Tyzack of Queen Elizabeth Building

See full judgment here.
See The Times Law Report 16 Dec 2020