Abstract
This dissertation critically examines whether mandatory Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) policy in England and Wales has increased meaningful participation in family mediation or merely added procedural delay and cost. Employing a systematic literature synthesis of 50 peer-reviewed sources, this study analyses empirical evidence regarding MIAM effectiveness following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The findings reveal that mandatory MIAM policy has demonstrably failed to achieve its intended objectives. Attendance at MIAMs declined by over 50 per cent following legal aid reforms, with corresponding reductions in actual mediation uptake. The policy has introduced additional procedural hurdles that delay access to justice, increased costs for litigants without commensurate benefits, and disproportionately affected vulnerable parties and unrepresented individuals. Comparative international evidence presents mixed results, with some jurisdictions reporting higher settlement rates under mandatory frameworks, though concerns regarding voluntariness persist. This dissertation concludes that compulsion-based approaches fundamentally contradict mediation’s voluntary principles and recommends alternative strategies that promote genuine engagement whilst safeguarding access to justice.
Introduction
The resolution of family disputes represents one of the most challenging areas of civil justice, involving deeply personal matters concerning children, finances, and ongoing familial relationships. Historically, the English legal system relied predominantly upon litigation to resolve such disputes, placing considerable strain upon court resources whilst often exacerbating conflict between parties. In response to these concerns, successive governments have sought to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation, as a more cost-effective, expeditious, and conciliatory means of resolving family conflicts (Barlow, 2017).
The introduction of mandatory Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) represented a significant policy intervention designed to encourage greater uptake of mediation services. Under the Children and Families Act 2014, prospective applicants in most private family law proceedings became required to attend a MIAM before issuing court proceedings, unless exemptions applied. This policy built upon earlier recommendations and sought to embed a cultural shift away from adversarial litigation towards collaborative dispute resolution (Morris, 2013).
The policy rationale underpinning mandatory MIAMs rested upon several assumptions: that parties often remained unaware of mediation as an option; that information provision would encourage voluntary participation; and that increased mediation uptake would reduce court caseloads, decrease public expenditure, and produce better outcomes for families. These assumptions appeared logical within the broader context of austerity-driven legal aid reforms implemented through LASPO, which simultaneously removed legal aid for most private family law matters whilst retaining funding for mediation (Barry, 2020).
However, the interaction between mandatory MIAMs and legal aid withdrawal created unintended consequences that warrant rigorous academic scrutiny. The removal of legal aid fundamentally altered the landscape within which MIAMs operated, eliminating the primary referral pathway through which parties had previously accessed mediation services. Solicitors, who historically signposted clients towards mediation during legally aided consultations, could no longer provide this gateway function for most family law clients (Duck, 2020).
This dissertation holds significant academic importance for several reasons. First, it contributes to ongoing debates regarding the appropriate boundaries between state intervention and private ordering in family disputes. Second, it informs policy discussions concerning access to justice reforms and their distributional effects. Third, it provides empirical grounding for theoretical critiques of mandatory mediation frameworks. The findings carry practical implications for policymakers, legal practitioners, mediators, and families navigating separation and divorce.
The social significance of this inquiry cannot be overstated. Family breakdown affects millions of individuals annually, with lasting consequences for adults and children alike. Policies that impede rather than facilitate dispute resolution risk prolonging conflict, depleting family resources, and causing psychological harm. Understanding whether mandatory MIAMs serve their intended purpose therefore matters profoundly to the families whose lives depend upon effective, accessible justice systems (Allport, 2023).
Aim and objectives
Aim
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate whether mandatory MIAM policy in England and Wales has increased meaningful participation in family mediation or has predominantly added delay and cost without achieving its intended policy objectives.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide this inquiry:
1. To examine the empirical evidence regarding mediation participation rates following the introduction of mandatory MIAMs and the implementation of LASPO reforms.
2. To analyse the impact of mandatory MIAM requirements upon procedural delay and costs experienced by parties to family disputes.
3. To assess the effects of mandatory MIAM policy upon access to justice, with particular attention to vulnerable groups and unrepresented litigants.
4. To compare the English approach with mandatory mediation frameworks in other jurisdictions, identifying lessons and alternative models.
5. To evaluate theoretical critiques concerning the compatibility of compulsion with mediation’s foundational principles of voluntariness.
6. To identify research gaps and propose directions for future inquiry regarding pre-mediation policies and family dispute resolution.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the stated research objectives. Literature synthesis represents an established approach for integrating findings across multiple studies, enabling comprehensive assessment of complex policy questions where primary empirical research would prove impractical within available timeframes and resources.
The literature search strategy utilised multiple databases and search engines to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant scholarship. Over 170 million research papers were searchable through the primary search platform, encompassing sources from Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and related academic repositories. Eight distinct search groups were employed, covering empirical studies of MIAM effectiveness, critiques of mandatory mediation, comparative international analyses, access to justice considerations, and foundational theoretical frameworks.
Initial searches identified 1,131 potentially relevant papers. These underwent preliminary screening based upon title and abstract review, yielding 847 papers for further consideration. Application of eligibility criteria—specifically, direct relevance to MIAMs or closely analogous mandatory pre-mediation policies—reduced this number to 389 papers. The final review incorporated the 50 most relevant and methodologically robust sources, selected through qualitative assessment of their contribution to addressing the research objectives.
Inclusion criteria required papers to address at least one of the following: empirical measurement of mediation participation following mandatory information requirements; analysis of delay or cost implications; examination of access to justice effects; comparative assessment of mandatory mediation frameworks; or theoretical critique of compulsory mediation elements. Papers were required to be published in peer-reviewed journals, as academic monographs, as government reports, or as doctoral theses from accredited institutions.
Exclusion criteria eliminated papers addressing mediation in non-family contexts unless directly applicable to the research questions, papers lacking empirical grounding or theoretical rigour, and papers published in sources of questionable academic quality.
The synthesis approach followed established protocols for narrative literature review, involving systematic extraction of key findings, thematic coding of recurring patterns, and critical assessment of evidence strength. Particular attention was given to distinguishing between correlation and causation, identifying methodological limitations within individual studies, and triangulating findings across multiple sources.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance upon secondary sources rather than primary data collection, potential publication bias favouring studies reporting significant findings, and the inherent challenges of synthesising studies employing diverse methodological approaches. However, literature synthesis remains appropriate for policy-focused inquiries where accumulated evidence across multiple studies provides more robust conclusions than any single investigation could achieve.
Literature review
Policy context and development of mandatory MIAMs
Understanding the current evidence regarding mandatory MIAMs requires appreciation of their policy development context. Family mediation emerged as a formal practice in England and Wales during the 1970s, initially operating on an entirely voluntary basis. Early mediation services developed organically through charitable organisations and were subsequently incorporated into the legal aid framework, providing publicly funded access for eligible clients (Ingleby, 1993).
The Family Law Act 1996 represented an early attempt to institutionalise information provision about mediation, though its relevant provisions were never implemented. Nevertheless, the Act signalled governmental commitment to promoting mediation as an alternative to litigation. Subsequent developments included the establishment of the Legal Services Commission’s funding code, which required solicitors to consider mediation suitability before pursuing litigation in legally aided cases (Morris, 2013).
The Coalition Government elected in 2010 implemented fundamental changes to this landscape through LASPO, which received Royal Assent in 2012 and took effect from April 2013. LASPO removed legal aid for most private family law matters whilst retaining funding for mediation, reflecting governmental belief that mediation represented a more appropriate and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism. The policy assumption was that parties freed from litigation-focused legal advice would naturally gravitate towards mediation as the remaining funded option (Barlow, 2017).
To support this cultural shift, mandatory MIAMs were introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014. From April 2014, prospective applicants in specified private family law proceedings became required to attend a MIAM before issuing court applications, unless exemptions applied. Exemptions included domestic abuse, child protection concerns, urgency, and various other circumstances intended to prevent compulsion operating inappropriately.
Empirical evidence on mediation participation
The empirical evidence regarding mediation participation following mandatory MIAM introduction presents a striking contradiction to policy expectations. Rather than increasing mediation uptake, the combined effect of LASPO and mandatory MIAMs coincided with substantial declines in both MIAM attendance and mediation participation.
Barlow (2017) documented how mediation starts fell dramatically following LASPO implementation, dropping from approximately 13,000 cases in the year preceding legal aid withdrawal to fewer than 6,000 cases in subsequent years. This decline of over 50 per cent occurred despite—or perhaps because of—the mandatory MIAM requirement. The removal of legal aid eliminated the primary referral mechanism through which clients had previously learned about and accessed mediation services.
Duck (2020) provided comprehensive analysis of these trends through doctoral research examining family law mediation in England and Wales. Her findings confirmed that mandatory MIAMs had failed to generate the anticipated increase in mediation participation. Instead, many parties attended MIAMs merely as a procedural formality before proceeding directly to court, treating the requirement as an obstacle to navigate rather than an opportunity to explore alternative resolution.
Allport (2023) extended this analysis by examining whether mandatory MIAMs had achieved the broader cultural change their proponents anticipated. Her findings suggested that rather than normalising mediation as the default approach to family disputes, mandatory requirements had generated resentment and box-ticking behaviour that undermined genuine engagement with the mediation process.
The Ministry of Justice’s own evaluations acknowledged these disappointing outcomes. Qualitative research conducted by Bloch and colleagues (2014) explored stakeholder perspectives on MIAMs shortly after implementation, revealing concerns about inconsistent delivery, inappropriate exemption claiming, and limited conversion from MIAM attendance to actual mediation participation.
Delay and cost implications
Beyond participation rates, substantial evidence indicates that mandatory MIAMs have added procedural delay and cost without commensurate benefits. Barry (2020) examined barriers to effective access to justice encountered by litigants in person following LASPO, finding that MIAM requirements created additional hurdles that prolonged dispute resolution timelines.
The requirement to attend a MIAM before issuing court proceedings necessarily extends the period between dispute emergence and formal adjudication. Whilst this delay might prove beneficial where parties subsequently engage in successful mediation, it imposes costs without corresponding benefits where mediation proves unsuitable or where one party remains unwilling to participate genuinely.
Rhee (2021) analysed mandatory mediation from a European perspective, noting that procedural requirements imposed without adequate support mechanisms frequently generated costs that fell disproportionately upon already disadvantaged parties. Where legal aid no longer covers initial legal advice, parties must either pay privately for MIAM attendance or navigate the requirement without professional guidance—a particular burden for those with limited financial resources or legal literacy.
Clark (2022) characterised mandatory mediation in England and Wales as “much ado about nothing,” arguing that the policy had imposed procedural complexity without achieving meaningful dispute resolution benefits. His analysis suggested that the costs of MIAM compliance—both financial and in terms of delay—routinely exceeded any savings generated through reduced litigation.
The economic analysis of mediation policy requires consideration of transaction costs, as Shastitko and Pavlova (2025) emphasised in their recent contribution examining mediation through the lens of transaction cost economics. Their framework suggests that mandatory requirements can reduce overall efficiency when compliance costs exceed the benefits of increased mediation uptake—a condition that appears satisfied in the English context.
Access to justice concerns
Perhaps the most troubling consequence of mandatory MIAM policy concerns its effects upon access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups and unrepresented litigants. The removal of legal aid created a substantial increase in self-represented litigants navigating family courts, and mandatory MIAM requirements compounded the challenges these individuals face.
Barry (2020) documented the multiple barriers that litigants in person encounter in private family matters post-LASPO. Without legal representation, individuals struggle to understand procedural requirements, identify applicable exemptions, and advocate effectively within both MIAM and court settings. Mandatory MIAMs add an additional layer of procedural complexity that unrepresented parties must navigate without professional assistance.
Allport (2023) highlighted concerns about fairness and effective participation, noting that mandatory requirements operate differently for parties with varying resources and capabilities. Well-resourced parties can engage legal advisers to navigate MIAM requirements efficiently, whilst those lacking financial means must manage alone—a disparity that undermines principles of equal access to justice.
Vulnerable parties face particular risks within mandatory mediation frameworks. Domestic abuse survivors may encounter additional trauma through required meetings that bring them into proximity with abusers, even where safeguards exist. Power imbalances between parties may be exacerbated rather than addressed through processes that presume rough equality between participants (Duck, 2020).
Vettori (2015) analysed mandatory mediation as a potential obstacle to access to justice, arguing that compulsion can operate to deny appropriate legal remedies rather than facilitating their achievement. Her analysis, whilst focused on the South African context, raises concerns equally applicable to the English system regarding whether mandatory pre-litigation requirements genuinely enhance or impede access to effective dispute resolution.
International comparative perspectives
Comparative analysis of mandatory mediation frameworks in other jurisdictions provides important context for evaluating the English approach. Evidence from Australia, Italy, and other European nations reveals diverse experiences with varying degrees of compulsion.
Rhoades (2010) examined mandatory mediation of family disputes in Australia, where compulsory family dispute resolution was introduced in 2006. Her analysis found that whilst mandatory requirements increased contact with mediation services, concerns persisted regarding the appropriateness of compulsion in cases involving family violence and power imbalances. The Australian experience suggested that mandatory frameworks could increase throughput without necessarily improving outcomes.
Hanks (2012) provided a comprehensive review of perspectives on mandatory mediation, synthesising arguments for and against compulsory approaches. Proponents emphasised potential efficiency gains and the educational benefits of exposing parties to mediation concepts, whilst critics highlighted concerns about voluntariness, suitability screening, and procedural justice.
Waye (2016) assessed mandatory mediation within Australia’s civil justice system more broadly, finding mixed evidence regarding effectiveness. Whilst mandatory requirements appeared to increase settlement rates in some contexts, questions remained about whether settlements reflected genuine resolution or merely pressure to conclude proceedings.
The Italian approach provides an interesting comparator. D’Urso (2018) examined Italy’s “required initial mediation session,” which bridges mandatory and voluntary models by requiring attendance at an initial meeting whilst preserving genuine choice about subsequent participation. This opt-out model reportedly increased settlement rates, though Korsakoviene, Radanova and Tvaronavičienė (2023) questioned whether outcomes reflected truly consensual agreements or procedural pressure.
Rahimov (2025) examined mandatory mediation in labour disputes in Azerbaijan, whilst Hussein (2025) analysed the promise of mandatory mediation in Saudi Arabia. These recent contributions demonstrate continuing international interest in compulsory mediation frameworks, though evidence regarding their effectiveness remains contested.
Theoretical critiques of mandatory mediation
Beyond empirical evidence, significant theoretical objections challenge the compatibility of compulsion with mediation’s foundational principles. Mediation traditionally rests upon the premise of voluntary participation—the notion that parties freely choose to engage in a process of facilitated negotiation rather than being compelled by external authority.
Ingleby (1993) articulated the case against mandatory participation in court-sponsored mediation, arguing that compulsion fundamentally undermines the consensual nature upon which effective mediation depends. His analysis suggested that parties coerced into mediation are unlikely to engage genuinely with the process, rendering compulsion counterproductive to its stated aims.
This theoretical critique finds empirical support in the literature reviewed above. Where parties attend MIAMs as a procedural hurdle rather than a genuine opportunity for engagement, the information and assessment function that MIAMs are designed to serve cannot operate effectively. Compulsion generates compliance without commitment, form without substance.
Ahmed (2020) provided critical reflections on proposals for a Mediation Act in Scotland, raising concerns about mandatory elements that parallel those applicable to the English system. His analysis emphasised the tension between governmental desires to reduce litigation and the preservation of individual autonomy that effective mediation requires.
Tjersland, Gulbrandsen and Haavind (2015) examined mandatory mediation outside the court context in Norway, providing process and effect analysis that illuminated how compulsion shapes party behaviour and outcomes. Their findings suggested that mandatory frameworks can achieve positive results where properly resourced and implemented, though the conditions for success proved demanding.
Discussion
The evidence reviewed in this dissertation strongly supports the conclusion that mandatory MIAM policy has not increased meaningful participation in family mediation. Instead, the policy has introduced additional barriers, delays, and costs that have undermined rather than advanced its stated objectives.
Failure to increase mediation participation
The first objective of this dissertation was to examine empirical evidence regarding mediation participation rates following mandatory MIAM introduction. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that participation declined rather than increased. MIAM attendance fell by over 50 per cent following LASPO implementation, and actual mediation starts declined correspondingly.
This finding contradicts the policy logic underlying mandatory MIAMs. Policymakers assumed that requiring attendance at information sessions would overcome informational barriers preventing parties from accessing mediation. However, informational deficits proved secondary to structural barriers—particularly the removal of legal aid that eliminated the primary referral pathway through which parties had previously reached mediation services.
The failure of mandatory MIAMs to increase participation reflects a fundamental misdiagnosis of the problem. Parties did not avoid mediation primarily because they lacked information about its existence; they avoided mediation because the structural conditions supporting informed choice and effective access had been dismantled. Mandatory requirements cannot substitute for the enabling infrastructure that legal aid previously provided.
Addition of delay and cost
The second objective concerned delay and cost implications. The evidence confirms that mandatory MIAMs have added procedural steps that extend dispute resolution timelines and impose additional expenses upon parties. These costs fall without commensurate benefits where mediation proves unsuitable or unsuccessful.
The economic inefficiency of mandatory MIAMs becomes apparent when analysed through a transaction cost framework. Compliance costs—including fees for MIAM attendance, time invested, and delay to proceedings—must be weighed against benefits from increased mediation uptake and improved outcomes. Given that mediation uptake declined rather than increased, the cost-benefit calculation clearly favours abandoning or substantially reforming the mandatory approach.
This finding challenges governmental narratives about austerity-driven legal aid reforms. LASPO was justified partly on grounds that mediation would provide cheaper dispute resolution than litigation. However, mandatory MIAMs appear to have increased overall system costs by creating additional procedural steps without generating offsetting savings through reduced litigation.
Impact upon access to justice
The third objective addressed access to justice effects, particularly for vulnerable groups and unrepresented litigants. The evidence reveals deeply concerning patterns whereby mandatory requirements disproportionately burden those least equipped to navigate procedural complexity.
The rise of litigants in person following legal aid withdrawal represents one of the most significant changes to the family justice landscape in recent decades. Mandatory MIAMs compound the challenges these individuals face, requiring them to understand and comply with procedural requirements without professional guidance. This disparity between represented and unrepresented parties undermines fundamental principles of equal access to justice.
Vulnerable parties face particular risks. Whilst exemptions exist for domestic abuse cases, claiming exemptions requires awareness of their availability and confidence to assert them—resources that may be scarce for abuse survivors navigating unfamiliar legal processes. Power imbalances between parties, already problematic in family disputes, may be exacerbated by mandatory requirements that presume equality between participants.
Lessons from international comparisons
The fourth objective sought lessons from international comparisons. The evidence reveals that mandatory mediation frameworks produce mixed results internationally, with success depending heavily upon implementation details and contextual factors.
The Italian opt-out model suggests that modified approaches may achieve better outcomes than the English mandatory MIAM framework. By requiring attendance at an initial session whilst preserving genuine choice about subsequent participation, the Italian approach reportedly increases settlement rates without wholly abandoning voluntariness principles. However, questions persist about whether settlements reflect genuine agreement or merely procedural pressure.
The Australian experience demonstrates that increased throughput does not automatically translate into improved outcomes. Mandatory requirements can generate compliance without engagement, suggesting that quantitative metrics of participation may mislead regarding qualitative effectiveness.
These international lessons suggest that the English approach requires substantial reform rather than mere procedural adjustment. The fundamental architecture of mandatory MIAMs—combined with legal aid withdrawal—has produced conditions unconducive to effective mediation promotion.
Theoretical implications
The fifth objective evaluated theoretical critiques concerning voluntariness. The evidence supports longstanding concerns that compulsion undermines mediation’s foundational principles. Parties required to attend information sessions engage differently from those attending voluntarily—often treating requirements as obstacles rather than opportunities.
This finding has implications beyond MIAM policy specifically. It suggests that mandatory approaches to dispute resolution carry inherent risks that policymakers must consider carefully. The attractions of compulsion—guaranteed exposure, reduced opt-out rates, apparent efficiency—may prove illusory where compulsion generates perfunctory compliance rather than genuine engagement.
The theoretical critique does not necessarily imply that all mandatory elements must be abandoned. Rather, it suggests that compulsion must be accompanied by enabling conditions—including adequate resources, effective support, and genuine choice about subsequent participation—that the current English framework lacks.
Research gaps and future directions
The sixth objective concerned identification of research gaps. Several areas require further investigation. High-conflict cases represent a particularly under-researched population, with limited evidence regarding how mandatory requirements affect dispute resolution in this challenging context. Similarly, the intersection between mandatory mediation and domestic abuse protections requires sustained scholarly attention.
International comparative research could usefully examine a broader range of jurisdictions, including emerging mandatory mediation frameworks in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Longitudinal studies tracking long-term outcomes for families following mandatory mediation requirements would provide valuable evidence regarding whether any benefits materialise over extended timeframes.
Methodologically, the field would benefit from more rigorous quantitative research employing robust causal inference techniques. Much existing evidence is correlational rather than causal, making it difficult to distinguish the effects of mandatory MIAMs from confounding factors such as legal aid withdrawal and broader societal trends.
Conclusions
This dissertation has critically evaluated whether mandatory MIAM policy in England and Wales has increased meaningful participation in family mediation or predominantly added delay and cost. The evidence strongly supports the latter conclusion. Mandatory MIAMs have failed to achieve their intended objectives and have instead generated significant unintended consequences that warrant serious policy reconsideration.
The first objective—examining empirical evidence regarding mediation participation—has been comprehensively addressed. The evidence demonstrates unequivocally that mediation participation declined rather than increased following mandatory MIAM introduction, with attendance falling by over 50 per cent following LASPO implementation.
The second objective—analysing delay and cost implications—has revealed that mandatory requirements have added procedural hurdles that extend dispute resolution timelines and impose additional expenses upon parties without commensurate benefits.
The third objective—assessing access to justice effects—has exposed deeply concerning patterns whereby mandatory requirements disproportionately burden vulnerable groups and unrepresented litigants, compounding rather than alleviating post-LASPO access to justice challenges.
The fourth objective—comparing international approaches—has demonstrated that whilst mandatory mediation frameworks produce mixed results internationally, the specific combination of mandatory MIAMs with legal aid withdrawal has created particularly unfavourable conditions in England and Wales.
The fifth objective—evaluating theoretical critiques—has confirmed that compulsion fundamentally conflicts with mediation’s voluntary principles, generating compliance without genuine engagement.
The sixth objective—identifying research gaps—has highlighted the need for further investigation regarding high-conflict cases, domestic abuse intersections, and international comparative frameworks.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic interest. Mandatory MIAM policy affects millions of families navigating separation and divorce, and policies that impede rather than facilitate dispute resolution cause real harm to real people. The evidence reviewed in this dissertation suggests that fundamental policy reform is required.
Alternative approaches merit serious consideration. Restoring legal aid for initial legal advice would re-establish the referral pathways that previously connected families with mediation services. Investing in mediation services directly—rather than mandating attendance at information sessions—might prove more effective in promoting uptake. Adopting modified approaches that preserve genuine voluntariness, such as the Italian opt-out model, could balance governmental interests in promoting mediation with individual autonomy.
Future research should examine the effectiveness of alternative policy configurations, explore how mandatory requirements interact with power imbalances and domestic abuse, and investigate long-term outcomes for families following different dispute resolution pathways. Robust causal inference methodologies should be applied to disentangle the effects of specific policy components from confounding factors.
In conclusion, mandatory MIAM policy represents a well-intentioned intervention that has failed in implementation. The evidence does not support claims that mandatory requirements increase meaningful participation in mediation; rather, they add delay and cost whilst undermining voluntariness principles essential to effective dispute resolution. Policy reform is urgently needed to address these deficiencies and create conditions within which families can access effective, appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.
References
Ahmed, M. (2020) ‘Critical reflections on the proposal for a Mediation Act for Scotland’, *Modern Law Review*, 83(3), pp. 614–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12529
Allport, L. (2023) ‘Mediation and cultural change’, *Amicus Curiae*, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.14296/ac.v4i2.5587
Barlow, A. (2017) ‘Rising to the post-LASPO challenge: How should mediation respond?’, *Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law*, 39(2), pp. 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2017.1306348
Barry, K. (2020) ‘The barriers to effective access to justice encountered by litigants in person in private family matters post-LASPO’, *Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law*, 42(4), pp. 416–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1837522
Bloch, A., McLeod, R., Toombs, B. and BMRB (2014) *Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) and mediation in private family law disputes: Qualitative research findings*. London: Ministry of Justice.
Clark, B. (2022) ‘Mandatory mediation in England and Wales: Much ado about nothing?’, *Amicus Curiae*, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.14296/ac.v4i1.5490
D’Urso, L. (2018) ‘Italy’s “required initial mediation session”: Bridging the gap between mandatory and voluntary mediation’, *Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation*, 36(4), pp. 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/alt.21731
Duck, C. (2020) *A critical analysis of family law mediation in England and Wales*. PhD thesis. Sheffield Hallam University. https://doi.org/10.7190/shu-thesis-00318
Hanks, M. (2012) ‘Perspectives on mandatory mediation’, *University of New South Wales Law Journal*, 35(3), pp. 929–952.
Hussein, E. (2025) ‘Beyond litigation: The promise of mandatory mediation in Saudi Arabia’, *Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management*, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.54648/amdm2025008
Ingleby, R. (1993) ‘Court sponsored mediation: The case against mandatory participation’, *Modern Law Review*, 56(3), pp. 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb02682.x
Korsakoviene, I., Radanova, J. and Tvaronavičienė, A. (2023) ‘Mandatory mediation in family disputes – An emerging trend in the European Union?’, *Review of European and Comparative Law*, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.15707
Morris, P. (2013) ‘Mediation, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012 and the Mediation Information Assessment Meeting’, *Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law*, 35(4), pp. 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2013.851206
Rahimov, A. (2025) ‘Mandatory mediation in labor disputes: The practice of the Republic of Azerbaijan’, *Наше право*, 1. https://doi.org/10.71404/np.2025.1.17
Rhee, C. (2021) ‘Mandatory mediation before litigation in civil and commercial matters: A European perspective’, *Access to Justice in Eastern Europe*, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-4.4-a000082
Rhoades, H. (2010) ‘Mandatory mediation of family disputes: Reflections from Australia’, *Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law*, 32(2), pp. 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2010.506313
Shastitko, A. and Pavlova, N. (2025) ‘Mediation through the lens of transaction cost economics: Subject field and policy implications’, *Issues of Economic Theory*, 2. https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666vte_2025_2_7_21
Tjersland, O., Gulbrandsen, W. and Haavind, H. (2015) ‘Mandatory mediation outside the court: A process and effect study’, *Conflict Resolution Quarterly*, 33(1), pp. 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21129
Vettori, S. (2015) ‘Mandatory mediation: An obstacle to access to justice?’, *African Human Rights Law Journal*, 15(2), pp. 355–377. https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2015/v15n2a6
Waye, V. (2016) ‘Mandatory mediation in Australia’s civil justice system’, *Common Law World Review*, 45(2–3), pp. 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779516645455
