RESOLUTION ISSUE 8

February 2016

In this issue we feature ‘child inclusive mediation’ in the context of family dispute resolution (FDR). Research tells us that one in three children before the age of sixteen is likely to experience a family break-up, sometimes several. How separation is handled over the following months and years is critical. Children caught up in their parents’ separation are profoundly sensitive and we must offer them the very best practice so as not to compound their struggle. In ‘Where is the voice of the child in FDR?’ Carol Powel, a leading expert in family mediation, discusses child focussed and child inclusive mediation; a practice that is a feature of the FDR Centre’s FDR mediation service. This intervention enables children to have a voice in the FDR mediation process as a means of reducing the risk associated with their parents’ separation – the cost is small, whereas the cost to our communities of unresolved conflict for children is incalculable.

 

CONTENTS

  • Avoiding unenforceable penalty clause – Samantha H Roberts and Emma Jones, Reed Smith, London
  • FEATURE – Where is the voice of the child in FDR? – Carol Powell, FDR Centre Panelist
  • Professional negligence: professionals’ continuing duty of care – Simon Garrett and Kate Murphy, CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, London
  • Do you want your mediator evaluative and are more inter-party meetings in mediation a good idea?- Iain Roxborough and Matthew Scully, Clifford Chance, London
  • Ut res magis valeat quam pereat and reconciling litigation and arbitration clauses in contract – Michael Stocks and Louise Lanzkron, Bird & Bird, UK
  • Singapore Court of Appeal Rules on Arbitrability – June Yeum, Clyde & Co, Singapore
  • Singapore Court of Appeal confirms that Award cannot be remitted to the Tribunal after being set aside by the Court – Leng Sun Chan SC, Rian Matthews, and Lavania Rengarajoo, Baker & McKenzie, Singapore27 Summary judgment in international arbitrations – to be or not to be? That is the question – Dermot McEvoy and Siobhan Marry, Eversheds, Ireland
  • Hong Kong Court confirms that indemnity costs are payable for unsuccessful challenges to arbitration agreements – Kwok Kit Cheung, Deacons, Hong Kong
  • CASE IN BRIEF – Torchlight Fund No 1 LP (in rec) v Johnstone [2015] NZHC 2559 – Catherine Green, NZDRC Panelist
  • Privy Council gives its view on “optional” arbitration clauses- Harriet Stokes, Michelmores LLP, London