The ‘Manchester Model’; Combining ENE/pFDRs and LAM (Lawyer Assisted Mediation). The Most Effective NCDR in Financial Remedy Cases?

Summary: This article examines a combined non-court dispute resolution model for financial remedy cases, bringing together early neutral evaluation/private FDR and lawyer-assisted or hybrid mediation within a single coordinated process. It argues that the model may materially enhance settlement prospects by combining robust evaluative input on likely court outcomes with a confidential, interest-based mediation framework supported by lawyers. The article also considers the practical structure of the process, the categories of case for which it may be particularly suitable, and the professional and client-related factors likely to influence its effectiveness.

Private financial dispute resolution hearings (pFDRs) are now well established both as a pre-issue form of early neutral evaluation and as a private alternative to the court-based FDR. In practice, they are commonly conducted with solicitors and counsel present on both sides. Although robust published empirical data in family finance remains limited, practitioners and chambers materials commonly report settlement rates in the region of 80–90% at or shortly after a private FDR, and court-based FDRs are themselves long recognised as a powerful settlement mechanism.[[1]] Pre-issue, the process may be described as an early neutral evaluation (ENE), although – as with much NCDR terminology – the label is used inconsistently and it is prudent to establish precisely what process is being proposed in any given case.

Lawyer-assisted mediation and hybrid mediation remain less familiar within family practice and there is still no universally accepted taxonomy. That said, there are now a number of practitioners around the country using these models to good effect. Although there is as yet little family-specific empirical data on outcomes, the process has clear parallels with evaluative and facilitated settlement models routinely used in civil practice. By way of comparator, the 2023 CEDR Mediation Audit reported an overall civil and commercial mediation settlement rate of 92%, comprising 72% settling on the day and a further 20% shortly afterwards.[[2]] ‘Hybrid mediation’ is used to describe a mediation process in which the mediator may hold information in confidence between participants, commonly (though not invariably) within a process involving solicitors and/or counsel attending with their clients. ‘Lawyer-assisted’ mediation of course involves lawyers, and will usually be conducted on the same basis as hybrid mediation; as in civil and commercial mediation.

The so-called ‘Manchester model’ combines a pFDR/ENE with lawyer-assisted mediation in a single extended process. It is facilitated jointly by a pFDR evaluator – typically an experienced solicitor or barrister, often with arbitral or judicial experience – and a suitably trained and experienced family mediator, ideally with hybrid and/or civil-commercial mediation training. In many cases a single day may suffice; in more legally, financially or personally complex matters, two or more days may be required. Even in apparently more straightforward cases, there may be value in allowing clients time to reflect overnight, rather than requiring decisions at the end of an intensive day when they may be fatigued or overwhelmed. Against that must be weighed the additional cost and the settlement momentum that often builds over the course of the day. In some cases there may be merit in allocating the evaluative stage to one day and mediated negotiations to the next. The complexity of the case will inevitably dictate what is appropriate, but careful advance planning – including, where possible, an agreed timetable for the evaluative stage – is plainly desirable.

At its core, the process requires a balance to be struck between respecting party autonomy and ensuring that any decisions made are genuinely voluntary, notwithstanding the pressure that inevitably accompanies a highly stressful and life-changing dispute.

Prior to the meeting taking place, all sign an ENE/LAM participation agreement setting out clearly the roles of the evaluator and the mediator, a bundle is provided in the usual way (to both evaluator and mediator), and counsel provide written position statements. The process is conducted on a without prejudice basis, with the usual well-understood exceptions (illegality, safeguarding, and with any relevant factual or financial information disclosed being on an open basis).

I suggest the mediator should conduct initial separate meetings with the clients without lawyers present prior to the ENE/LAM meeting, covering the matters discussed in a MIAM, and in particular screening for any domestic abuse and identifying any special measures or reasonable adjustments needed to give the process the greatest chance of success. This facilitates the process of starting to build trust and rapport with the clients, and should enable the mediator to suggest the format for the day, or possible options for the format, to then be agreed by the lawyers and clients.

If the case is to be conducted on one day, the day starts with the evaluator and mediator meeting each of the clients with their respective legal teams and running through the plan for the day, the practicalities, any reasonable adjustments (which should also have been considered in advance), reminding all of the ground rules, agreeing how each person will be addressed during the process, and answering any questions.

The meeting then begins with the pFDR taking place in the usual way. The evaluator hears from each participant’s legal representative and, if so agreed, from the clients themselves. The lawyers may be encouraged by the evaluator and mediator to focus more directly than they would in a court process on the objective of settlement, including why settlement matters to their respective clients in practical terms. The aim is to encourage all involved to understand more fully the position and priorities of each client. The mediator is present throughout, observing carefully what is said – and not said – and noting the dynamics within the room.

There is then a pause (adjournment) for the evaluator’s deliberations, before the meeting is resumed so that the evaluator may provide their evaluation orally, usually supported by a written summary for clarity either at the same time or a short while afterwards. The lawyers may ask questions, and the evaluator will provide any requested clarification.

This process provides the clients, who may not yet have had any experience of court and court hearings, with a window into what is to follow if a consensus is not reached. The clients observe a process managed by lawyers, in which the legal framework is dominant and determinative, their children (if they are lucky enough to have any) do not feature, and their worries, anxieties, hopes and emotions about the marriage, the relationship breakdown, the past and their future are entirely irrelevant and ignored.

The mediator then takes over management of the process, explaining that the evaluative stage has concluded and that the focus is now on resolution. The settlement may be informed by the evaluation just given, or it may take a different form. The mediator’s role is not to express a view on the outcome, but to help the clients – with the support of their lawyers – to reach a compromise that is workable and enables them to move forward without the continuing burden of unresolved litigation. A reminder of likely future costs and timescales may also be helpful at this stage or later in the day.

Meetings then take place separately between the mediator and each client with their lawyers in confidence to continue the process of understanding the personalities involved, the clients’ respective priorities, and building trust and rapport. Identifying and managing the lawyers’ objectives and concerns is also an important part of this; what advice have they given their clients in respect of each of the pertinent issues, how has the evaluation impacted on that, and how supportive or otherwise are they of the aim of achieving a consensual outcome. How much of the client’s case has been shaped by the lawyers’ views of what the client’s objectives should be? The more committed to finding a resolution the whole team is, the greater the chance of that being achieved.

Of course the mediator also needs to identify where each client stands in respect of the issues that need to be resolved, to test out their views, challenge, encourage risk/cost/benefit analyses, focus on the practicalities and realities rather than principles, translate expressed vehemently-held positions into cash terms, test the importance of timeframes for each, and for the wider family, and how those might fit into the best and worst alternatives to reaching a negotiated agreement (commonly referred to in negotiation literature as BATNA and WATNA: the best and worst alternatives to a negotiated agreement).[[3]] Helping the clients to reach an agreement depends on a focus on the clients’ interests, not their legal positions. In the language of principled negotiation, the task is to move from positional bargaining towards identifying the underlying interests, needs, concerns and priorities that may permit a workable settlement.[[4]]

A series of meetings will then take place during the course of the afternoon. Part of the skill of the mediator is in deciding on who should meet and when. For example, a meeting of the clients only with the mediator, or a meeting of the lawyers only with the mediator, and/or reconvening a meeting with everyone to take stock, record what has been achieved so far, and where the gaps remain. Of course the mediator can only make suggestions about who should meet and when; sometimes clients do not wish to meet together without their lawyers, or to be in the same room at all. The latter can be readily managed if necessary with a combination of online/in person meetings, with the participants being in a separate room or a completely different location.

Why may this process prove particularly effective? If sufficient trust is established, the mediator is uniquely able to hold confidences. That enables a fuller understanding of each client’s priorities, red lines and potential scope for compromise. Areas of overlap may emerge that would not readily surface in another process, while gaps elsewhere may be bridged by leveraging those points of convergence. Provided the clients are genuinely committed to resolution – or their positions align sufficiently with likely court outcomes – a consensual outcome may be realistically achievable.

What may prevent this? Without wishing to generalise, the biggest challenge will usually come from the personalities of the clients or the lawyers. If everyone is working together to achieve a negotiated outcome, then it should happen. If not, it may still happen, but this does require all the practitioners involved engaging their integrity to assist the clients to resolve matters by consent in spite of the obviously conflicting commercial incentive of ongoing litigation. The process ensures that worries that concessions will not be matched by the other person can be readily managed by the mediator. Concessions that each person is willing to make may be held in confidence by the mediator and do not need to be shared unless and until a consensus on some or all issues is within reach.

Lawyers should be ready for the mediator to ask what percentage chance of success they would give an argument on a particular issue, as well as how long the whole process of pursuing such an argument is likely to take, and how much it will cost in financial terms. The mediator is also likely to encourage consideration of the wider cost; the emotional and psychological cost, and most importantly the ongoing impact on the couple’s children of their parents being in conflict and feeling financially vulnerable or threatened. There is a substantial body of evidence that frequent, intense and poorly resolved inter-parental conflict can harm children’s mental health and wellbeing, social and behavioural functioning, school outcomes and longer-term life chances.[[5]] This factor is invariably never considered either at all, or at most in passing, in pFDRs or FDRs. There are likely also to be other costs at play; the impact on the business(es) of the owner(s) being more focused on their dispute than on the business enterprise, or on each of the couple’s career progression and physical and mental health.

Sometimes factual uncertainties mean delay makes more sense than finalising an agreement and so this may prevent a mediated resolution at that particular point in time. For example, where a client has just lost a very highly-paid role and faces the challenge of finding another which may take quite a long time and carry significant uncertainty about the replacement remuneration package. This was the situation in one case in which we were involved.

However, these challenges are equally present whether or not a mediator is involved, and it may be that the ability to speak frankly with each party, understand their bottom line and to hold confidences will assist in finding a way through an apparent impasse either at that point in time or sometime subsequently with the issues having been narrowed.

The day (or days) ideally conclude with an agreement and the lawyers will draft an Xydhias agreement, or preferably a draft order. The mediator remains to assist with any drafting points that need resolution.

How can you find an appropriate evaluator and mediator combination? There is no register currently of mediators qualified and experienced in conducting hybrid family mediation, so it’s a question of asking. Accredited family mediators may of course be found on the FMC website www.familymediationcouncil.org. Some firms (like ours) have arbitrators and accredited mediators with the appropriate experience who can work together in this way (warning: blatant pitch for work: give me a call to discuss options!). Alternatively your ‘usual’ pFDR/ENE practitioner (counsel or solicitor) should be willing to collaborate in this process with a hybrid mediator. Be brave: give it a go!

Practitioners with substantial financial remedy and private FDR experience consistently emphasise the value of a genuinely evaluative process, careful preparation, and the selection of an evaluator with appropriate expertise in the particular assets and issues profile of the case. Equally, experienced hybrid mediators stress the importance of flexibility, safeguarding awareness, separate preliminary assessment, and the capacity to work with lawyers and other professionals in a way that supports informed but client-led settlement discussions.[[6]]

Further resources

Introduction to lawyer-assisted or hybrid mediation - Part 1 | Mills & Reeve

An introduction to lawyer-assisted or hybrid mediation - Part 2 | Mills & Reeve

[[1]]: Queen Elizabeth Building, ‘Private FDR’ https://www.qeb.co.uk/private-dispute-resolution/private-fdr/ accessed 1 June 2026.

[[2]]: CEDR, The Tenth Mediation Audit: A Survey of Commercial Mediator Attitudes and Experience in the United Kingdom (1 February 2023) https://www.cedr.com/hubfs/CEDR/Mediation%20Audit/Tenth-CEDR-Mediation-Audit-2023.pdf?hsLang=en accessed 1 June 2026; Civil Mediation Council, ‘Publication of the 10th CEDR Mediation Audit’ (2 February 2023) https://civilmediation.org/10th-cedr-mediation-audit / accessed 1 June 2026.

[[3]]: Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd edn, Penguin 2011).

[[4]]: Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd edn, Penguin 2011).

[[5]]: Department for Work and Pensions, ‘Parental Conflict Indicator, 2011 to 2022’ (12 March 2025) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/parental-conflict-indicator-2011-to-2022/parental-conflict-indicator-2011-to-2022 accessed 1 June 2026; Department for Work and Pensions, What Works to Enhance Inter-Parental Relationships and Improve Outcomes for Children https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509368/what-works-to-enhance-inter-parental-relationships.pdf accessed 1 June 2026.

[[6]]: Resolution, ‘Hybrid Mediation’ https://resolution.org.uk/looking-for-help/splitting-up/your-process-options-for-divorce-and-dissolution/hybrid-mediation/ accessed 1 June 2026; Family Mediation Council, ‘Home’ https://www.familymediationcouncil.org.uk/ accessed 1 June 2026.