Which NCDR option fits your situation?
Key facts
- The main non-court options are mediation, arbitration, collaborative law and neutral evaluation, suited to different levels of conflict and complexity.
- Mediation keeps the decisions with you; arbitration hands them to an arbitrator; evaluation gives you a steer to help you settle.
- The right choice depends on how well you can communicate, how complex the issues are, and whether you need a binding decision.
- Since 29 April 2024 the family court expects parties to consider non-court dispute resolution and can take an unreasonable refusal into account on costs.
- Many families combine routes, for example mediating most issues and arbitrating or evaluating the one point they cannot agree.
Non-court dispute resolution, or NCDR, is the umbrella term for the ways of sorting out a family dispute without a contested court hearing. There is no single best option. Each suits a different level of conflict, complexity and need for finality. This guide sets them side by side and offers a simple way to work out which is likely to fit your situation.
If you are starting from the top, our comparison of mediation and court is the place to begin. This page then helps you choose between the non-court routes themselves.
The main NCDR options at a glance
Five routes cover most situations. They differ mainly in who makes the decision and how much support each person has. Read across the table to see the trade-offs.
| Option | Who decides | Binding? | Best suited to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation | You both, helped by an impartial mediator | Once made an order | Couples who can talk, want control and want to keep costs down |
| Solicitor negotiation | You both, advised by your own lawyers | Once made an order | Where direct contact is hard but you want to settle out of court |
| Collaborative law | You both, with your lawyers in the room | Once made an order | Wanting advice at your side in a constructive round-table process |
| Private FDR / evaluation | You both, guided by an expert’s view | Once made an order | Breaking a deadlock with a candid steer on the likely outcome |
| Arbitration | The arbitrator you appoint | Yes | Needing a final, binding decision quickly and privately |
How to choose: a decision guide by situation
The quickest way to narrow the field is to think about three things: how well you and your ex-partner can communicate, how complex the issues are, and whether you need someone to make a binding decision. The table below maps common situations to the option that tends to fit.
| If your situation is… | A route that often fits | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You can communicate and want to keep control | Mediation | Party-led, lower cost, preserves co-parenting |
| Talking directly is hard but you want to settle | Solicitor negotiation | Each of you is advised and represented |
| You want your own lawyer beside you at the table | Collaborative law | Advice in the room, committed to settling |
| You agree on most things but are stuck on one point | Private FDR or evaluation | An independent steer to break the deadlock |
| You cannot agree and need a final answer, privately | Arbitration | A binding decision without a public court case |
| Finances are simple and trust is good | A kitchen-table agreement | Direct, low cost, then formalised in an order |
These are starting points, not rules. Your circumstances may point to a blend. Couples frequently mediate the bulk of a settlement and then use arbitration or a private FDR for the one issue that will not budge. If you want a lawyer at your side throughout, collaborative law may suit. And where communication is very difficult, solicitor negotiation keeps you at arm’s length while still avoiding court.
When none of the non-court routes is right
NCDR is not suitable in every case. Where there has been domestic abuse, where a child is at risk, where one person hides assets or refuses to disclose, or where an urgent order is needed, the court is the appropriate forum. Mediators screen every case for safety, and there are recognised reasons why mediation may not be suitable. If you are worried about safety, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is free on 0808 2000 247, and in an emergency you should call 999.
Non-court dispute resolution is defined in the Family Procedure Rules (rule 2.3) as methods of resolving a dispute other than through the court, including mediation, arbitration, evaluation by a neutral third party such as a private FDR, and collaborative law. Reforms in force from 29 April 2024, set out in Part 3 and Practice Direction 3A, strengthened the expectation that parties consider these options: the court can adjourn to allow for NCDR and can take an unreasonable refusal into account when deciding costs. A MIAM is usually the first step, and the FM5 form asks each party to set out their position on NCDR.
Where mediation fits among the options
Mediation is often the natural first port of call because it is the lowest-cost route, keeps the decisions with you, and is best placed to protect a working relationship between co-parents. It is also the process the MIAM is designed to introduce. But it is not a competition. The value of understanding all the options is being able to pick the one, or the combination, that genuinely fits your family. Our explainer on how NCDR works in law sets out the framework in more detail.
Questions worth asking before you choose
A few honest questions can point you towards the right route more quickly than any table. Can the two of you be in the same process without it becoming destructive? If yes, mediation or collaborative law are likely to be open to you. If direct contact is genuinely too difficult, solicitor negotiation keeps you at arm’s length. Do you need a decision that is final and binding, or would a steer be enough? If you need finality, arbitration provides it; if a candid view would help you settle, a private FDR or evaluation may be all you require.
It is also worth thinking about cost and pace. Mediation and a kitchen-table agreement are usually the least expensive, and they can move quickly where both people are ready. Collaborative law and arbitration cost more because more professionals are involved, but they buy you either advice at your side or a binding outcome. Weighing what matters most to you, control, cost, speed or certainty, usually makes the choice clearer.
Whatever you choose, it helps to remember that reaching agreement out of court almost always ends with the same practical step: turning what you have agreed into a consent order so the finances are binding. The route you pick is really about how you get to that agreement, and which process gives your family the best chance of a fair, lasting outcome.
A practical tip
You do not have to decide everything at the outset. Many people start with a MIAM, try mediation, and move to another route only for the issues that remain. Choosing an NCDR option is rarely a one-off decision, and switching or combining routes is common and sensible.
Comparing the options on cost, speed and finality
Beyond who decides, the routes differ on cost, how quickly they run and whether they end in a binding decision. Holding these three factors side by side often makes the choice clearer, especially where budget or timing matters most to you.
| Option | Relative cost | Typical speed | Ends in a binding decision? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen-table agreement | Lowest | Fast where you agree | Only once made into an order |
| Mediation | Low, fees often shared | A few sessions over weeks or months | Only once made into an order |
| Solicitor negotiation | Moderate, charged per person | Depends on the correspondence | Only once made into an order |
| Collaborative law | Higher, two lawyers involved | A few round-table meetings | Only once made into an order |
| Private FDR / evaluation | Moderate to higher | Usually a single dedicated day | No, a steer only |
| Arbitration | Higher, you pay the arbitrator | You set the pace, often weeks | Yes |
None of these figures is fixed, and much depends on how far apart you start and how complex the issues are. As a rule of thumb, the more the decision rests with you, the lower the cost tends to be, while paying for a decision-maker, whether an evaluator or an arbitrator, buys either a candid steer or a final answer.
Matching the route to the issue, not just the case
One of the most useful ideas in non-court dispute resolution is that you do not have to choose a single route for everything. Different issues within the same separation can suit different processes. Arrangements for the children might settle easily in mediation, while a technical financial point, such as dividing a pension or valuing a business, might be better suited to a private FDR or to arbitration. Splitting the case this way lets you keep control where you can and bring in a decision-maker only where you truly need one.
This is why so many families end up combining routes rather than picking just one. A couple might mediate the parenting plan, take independent legal advice on the finances, use an evaluation to test a sticking point, and arbitrate the single issue that will not move. Each part goes to the process that fits it best, and the whole is still resolved without a contested final hearing. If you would like to understand any single route in more depth, our guides to solicitor negotiation and the kitchen-table route sit alongside this overview.
Where a MIAM fits in choosing a route
For most children and financial applications, the starting point is a MIAM, a first meeting where a trained mediator explains the options and checks which might suit your situation. The MIAM is not mediation itself and does not commit you to it. It is an information meeting, and it is often the moment when the choice between the routes on this page becomes clearer, because the mediator can talk through what each would involve for you.
If mediation is not the right fit, the mediator can still sign the certificate you need to apply to court, or point you towards another non-court route. In this sense the MIAM is less a gateway to one process and more a chance to weigh them all with someone who knows the field. You can read what to expect in our guide to what happens at a MIAM.
Hana and Joe came out of their MIAM unsure which way to turn. They agreed easily about the children but were poles apart on the finances, where Joe ran a business and Hana felt out of her depth. They mediated the parenting arrangements and settled them quickly. For the finances, they each took legal advice and then used a private evaluation to get an independent view, which brought them close enough to agree. The one remaining point, the treatment of the business, they referred to an arbitrator for a binding decision. By matching each issue to the right route, they resolved everything without a contested court hearing.
Frequently asked questions
What are the main NCDR options?
The main non-court options are mediation, solicitor negotiation, collaborative law, private FDR or early neutral evaluation, and arbitration. A kitchen-table agreement is also an option where finances are simple. Each suits different levels of conflict and complexity.
How do I choose the right NCDR option?
Think about how well you can communicate, how complex the issues are, and whether you need a binding decision. Mediation suits couples who can talk and want control; arbitration suits those needing a final answer; evaluation helps break a deadlock.
Can I use more than one NCDR option?
Yes, and many people do. It is common to mediate most issues and use arbitration or a private FDR for the one point you cannot agree, matching each issue to the route that fits it best.
Do I have to consider NCDR before court?
In most children and financial cases you must attend a MIAM first, and since April 2024 the court expects parties to consider non-court options and can take an unreasonable refusal into account on costs.
When is court the right choice instead of NCDR?
Where there has been domestic abuse, a child is at risk, one person hides assets or will not disclose, or an urgent order is needed. In those situations the court is the appropriate forum.
Which NCDR option is cheapest?
A kitchen-table agreement and mediation are usually the least expensive, because there is either no professional or a single shared fee. Collaborative law and arbitration cost more because more professionals are involved, but they buy advice at your side or a binding outcome.
Which NCDR option is fastest?
It varies, but mediation and a kitchen-table agreement can move quickly where both people are ready, and a private FDR is often a single dedicated day. Arbitration is usually faster than court because you set the timetable rather than wait for a listing.
Do I have to pick just one NCDR route?
No. Many families combine routes, matching each issue to the process that fits it best, for example mediating the children arrangements and arbitrating a single financial point. Switching or combining routes is common and sensible.
Sources
- Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3A, justice.gov.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.
- Family Procedure Rules, Part 2 (interpretation), justice.gov.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.
- Resolution, Ways to resolve disputes out of court, resolution.org.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.
- Family Mediation Council, What is family mediation, familymediationcouncil.org.uk. Accessed 9 July 2026.