Assessing the Early Impact of the April 2024 NCDR Reforms: Reflections from the Forsters Family Team
28 May 2025
News
Last week, the Forsters Family team was delighted to host a seminar exploring the amendments to the Family Procedure Rules which came into effect in April 2024. The session focused on the enhanced emphasis on non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) and posed the central question: NCDR changes, one year on – new dawn or damp squib?
We were fortunate to be joined in the audience by many of the glitterati of the NCDR world, in a discussion chaired by Rhys Taylor and with a panel comprising Stephen Wildblood KC, Judith Rowe KC, Anita Mehta and our Head of Family, Jo Edwards.
Our audience answered questions on the NCDR changes, the results of which can be seen below. They show a majority view that the changes are yet to promote any real increase in the number of cases settling out of court; likewise, the room generally agreed that the new rules posed a risk to vulnerable people, and that we are yet to see the judiciary fully engage with their new NCDR powers. Whilst the general consensus was that it is still too early to determine the success and long-term impact of the reforms, a number of important themes came out of an engaging discussion to which the audience contributed many of their own ideas.
A shift in culture – but is it enduring?
There was a general sense of cautious optimism about the overall impact of the changes. Many practitioners noted a perceptible shift in the tone and culture of family proceedings, with a greater openness to mediation and other forms of NCDR. Some attendees reported a growth in their meditation practices and evidence of an increase in uncontested applications from recent HMCTS stats, suggesting that the reforms may already be influencing behaviour. As to whether these early signs will translate into lasting change, watch this space.
The mandating mediation debate
The question of whether mediation should be mandated generated lively and diverse views. While some welcomed the idea as a means of embedding a culture of resolution and reducing the burden on the courts, others expressed concern about the potential risks—particularly for vulnerable parties. The discussion underscored the need for a careful and nuanced approach that balances efficiency (and the need for meaningful change, which moves the dial on the huge volume of cases in the Family Court) with fairness and access to justice.
Domestic abuse and the risks of the new rules/moving towards mandating NCDR
A recurring concern was the risk that victims of domestic abuse may feel pressured to engage in mediation/other forms of NCDR, even when it is not appropriate, under the new rules. While the rules include important safeguards, the conversation highlighted the need for continued vigilance and the importance of robust screening mechanisms, which are thankfully becoming more sophisticated.
Judicial engagement and leadership
There was broad agreement that the judiciary has a critical (and greater) role to play in supporting the success of the NCDR reforms. Participants discussed the need for judges to take a more proactive stance in encouraging parties to consider NCDR, whilst also ensuring that such encouragement is applied consistently and appropriately. This would need to be balanced against the backlogs within the family courts and the unfortunate delays parties can already be subjected to.
Calls for greater boldness and learning from abroad
Several contributors urged the profession to be bolder in embracing the spirit of the reforms and to consider more transformative approaches to family justice. Courtesy of an attendee from Melbourne, the discussion also touched on the Australian experience, where similar reforms such as means-tested funding for NCDR, and parties needing to evidence a genuine effort to engage in NCDR before applying to court (with limited exemptions), have been in place for some time and may offer valuable lessons here.
We are grateful to our wonderful speakers and to all who attended and contributed to such a rich and thoughtful exchange. As the new rules continue to bed in, we look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration across the sector to ensure that NCDR delivers on its promise of a more constructive, less adversarial approach to resolving family disputes.
Owen Spencer writes for CoStar on the hidden strain of return-to-office
22 May 2025
News
As organisations grapple with their return-to-office, Owen Spencer, a specialist lawyer in our Corporate Occupiers and Tenants team, has written an article for CoStar looking at how office occupiers can protect against outgrowing their space.
Anticipating real estate needs over 5-10 years can be challenging, so ensuring that there’s options for growth is prudent. Owen sets out some options available, weighing up the benefits and pitfalls with each, including:
pre-emption rights – both contraction and expansion options during a pre-let period and long-term rights of first offer and refusal
alienation – taking more space than you initially need and entering into a day-one sub-lease
alterations flexibility – having enough latitude to make changes to use the space more efficiently
building selection – taking space in a building with flex offering
Looking beyond the headlines: Understanding the UK’s Immigration White Paper
16 May 2025
News
The government’s immigration white paper outlines substantial reforms to the UK’s immigration system, but are they really cause for concern for those looking to move to or remain in the country? And what should employers be thinking about when it comes to accessing international talent?
On 12 May 2025, the UK government released its immigration white paper, titled ‘Restoring Control Over the Immigration System’, outlining significant reforms. The Labour administration, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, aims to reduce net migration by 100,000 annually, by imposing stricter conditions for visa eligibility and shifting immigration access to a ‘contribution-based’ framework.
These immigration reforms have already led to significant public concern and media coverage. But while the changes have sparked alarm, it’s important to note that these are currently only proposals and not yet confirmed policies, and as such are subject to change and not yet enacted by Parliament.
In addition, these proposals will require rule changes and, in some cases, new legislation. The legislative process means that these proposals may take a considerable amount of time to pass through Parliament, particularly as they are likely to be strongly debated. The exact date for their implementation (if confirmed) is therefore unknown, and certainly not imminent.
It is also important to note that previous governments have suggested equally radical changes over the years, some of which get “adjusted” in less media-seeking ways. For example, we have already had changes to salary thresholds and qualification requirements. Many of these changes come full-circle over time. Interestingly too, many policy changes are simply introduced without the need for primary legislation, and changes can and are made regularly and without making headline news.
Key changes proposed
Skilled Worker visa reforms
Qualification requirements: the skill threshold for Skilled Worker visas is to be raised, restoring it from RQF Level 3 (A level equivalent) back to its pre-Brexit position, RQF level 6 (graduate level). This means that applicants will need to hold a university degree or equivalent to apply for a Skilled Worker visa. Roles below this skill level must be on the Temporary Shortage Occupation List, subject to sectoral review to qualify for sponsorship.
Salary threshold: a new, higher salary threshold is proposed, with consultations ongoing.
Immigration Skills Charge: this will increase by 32%, bringing it in line with inflation. Despite requests from business, there is no reinvestment or visibility of how ISC funds are used.
Immigration Salary List: this is to be abolished and the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) is to undertake a review of salary requirements.
Domestic talent: employers will be incentivised to invest in boosting domestic talent. Employers who fail to invest in skills training for the resident workforce may be restricted from sponsoring overseas workers.
Graduate Route Adjustments
Visa duration: the Graduate visa will be reduced from two years to 18 months.
Dependants: restrictions on bringing dependants during this period will be implemented.
High Potential Individual (HPI) route: there is a proposal to expand the HPI route to allow graduates of world-leading overseas universities to work in the UK.
Social Care and lower skilled work
Care Worker visas: new applications for care worker visas will be closed, though existing visa holders will benefit from transitional arrangements and may renew or switch visas during a transitional period.
Sponsorship for lower-skilled roles: this will be time-limited, may be subject to a cap and will only be permitted for occupations where:
the MAC has advised it is justified
there have been long-term shortages
there is a workforce strategy in place and
employers wanting to recruit from abroad are committed to increasing recruitment from the domestic workforce.
English Language
Language proficiency: there will be increased English language requirements for all visa categories. Level B2 will be required for all main applicants and dependants must meet A1 and progress for settlement. Existing settlement language requirements would be increased across most immigration routes from level B1 to level B2 (Independent User).
Settlement, also known as Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR)
Time required to obtain ILR: the time required to attain settled status will double from five to ten years. A fast-track route under a contribution-based model is being considered.
A shorter pathway to settlement: this will remain for non‐UK dependants of British citizens, maintaining a five‐year qualifying period provided compliance with established requirements is demonstrated, along with safeguards for vulnerable groups (including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse).
Citizenship
Changes to the Citizenship process will mirror the new settlement pathway as outlined above.
Life in the UK test: the current Life in the UK test will be reviewed and ‘refreshed’.
Family Route
Requirements will be imposed so that incoming family migrants must demonstrate an appropriate level of English language proficiency.
The financial requirements under Appendix FM will be extended to other dependant routes.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (the right to a family and private life) discretion will be narrowed.
Clarification will be made to the Article 8 rules to set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as “exceptional”, and to set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of “exceptional circumstances”.
Enforcement
Visa revocation powers will be expanded to cover non-custodial convictions; and increased compliance activity is to be expected.
Conclusion
The white paper represents a significant shift in UK immigration policy, focusing on reducing net migration and prioritising high-skilled workers. While some sectors may benefit from streamlined processes, others, particularly in healthcare and education, may face challenges due to the proposed changes. The government’s approach reflects a balance between controlling immigration and addressing sectoral needs, though its long-term impact remains to be seen.
Whilst the headlines may have suggested cause for concern, it important to note that these proposals are not yet confirmed policies. There will be time for both employers and individuals to plan ahead as the proposed changes make their way through Parliament.
In a similar vein, there are various rumours relating to the introduction of a new investor visa encouraging investment into businesses in the UK with particular focus on AI, in exchange for residence in the UK. Various prototypes of such a scheme have been discussed at policy level for some time now, but again, these ideas have not progressed, and any form of investor visa is certainly not imminent. Currently the UK does not offer a wide variety of options, especially for wealthy individuals, but if you are considering relocating to the UK, we can help devise a strategy for you.
If you need tailored immigration advice, our team of experts is here to help. We work with both employers and individuals across the whole spectrum of immigration needs, taking a pragmatic and sensitive approach to make the process as smooth and swift as possible. Get in touch with one of our team to find out how these latest announcements will impact you or your workforce.
Understanding the UK’s Immigration White Paper
The government’s immigration white paper outlines substantial reforms to the UK’s immigration system, but are they really cause for concern?
Lifecycle of a Business – 10 tips when joint ventures go wrong
14 May 2025
News
Setting up and running your own business is an amazing achievement. It requires vision, creativity, motivation and stamina. On occasion, it can even bring you fame, riches and fortune. But it can also result in reams of paperwork and cause sleepless nights. And as someone once said to me about children “It doesn’t get easier, it just changes”, so the same can be said for your business throughout its lifecycle. From setting up to exit, it will force you to consider issues that you might not previously have known anything about and it will need you to make many decisions, sometimes very quickly. What it certainly is not is mundane.
With this in mind, the corporate team at Forsters, together with some of our specialist colleagues, has written a series of articles about the various issues and some of the key points that it may help you to know about at each stage of a business’s life. Not all of these will be relevant to you or your business endeavours, but we hope that you will find at least some of these guides interesting and useful, whether you just have the glimmer of an idea, are a start-up, a well-established enterprise or are considering your exit options. Do feel free to drop us a line or pick up the phone if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised further.
We’ve already discussed various topics, including funding, employment and commercial contracts, but it’s now time to discuss when things go wrong…
10 tips when joint ventures go wrong
Parties often enter into joint venture (JV) arrangements with a sense of excitement and enthusiasm; the parties seem a perfect match, the individuals involved get on well together and the market looks promising: “Yes, we’ll put in place a basic shareholders’ agreement but there’s really no need; it’ll just be filed somewhere and never looked at again.” As lawyers, we really hope that’s the case too, but situations can and do change.
So, what can you do if the relationship breaks down or your JV partner is in breach?
(This article assumes that the JV entity is an English company and as such, refers to shares, shareholders’ agreements and so on, but the points are applicable to other JV arrangements too.)
1. What’s the problem?
Decide what the actual issue is (of course, there could be more than one). This may be straightforward (for example, your JV partner had a contractual obligation to acquire a licence and hasn’t done so) or it could be more complex, but, once you’re clear as to the main problem(s), you can then focus on how to deal with them.
2. Call on your legal advisors
Calling your legal advisors may be seen as a last resort, particularly in a dispute situation, but getting them involved early on can save time and money in the long-run. Not only will they be able to review the documents and let you know your options, but they may have other suggestions as to how to resolve, or deal with, the issue. Involving lawyers can defuse the emotion from the situation and focus everyone’s minds.
3. Does the shareholders’ agreement cover the problem?
Once you’ve decided what the actual issue is (see point 1), you should look at the shareholders’ agreement and see if it covers the problem. If your JV partner has failed to fulfil one of its material obligations, it will be in breach of contract and the shareholders’ agreement should provide for what happens in this situation.
While parties are often eager to get started with their new venture, it’s vital to put in place a comprehensive shareholders’ agreement as early in the arrangement as possible, precisely for this type of situation.
The agreement should set out the contractual relationship between the parties, including specifying each party’s obligations towards the JV and each other, how decisions will be made and the steps to take if a party wants to walk away, the parties are in dispute or the JV is to be terminated. Don’t be tempted to skip over these provisions when the shareholders’ agreement is being negotiated; it’s much easier to agree the process when the parties are amicable than when the relationship is breaking down.
4. Do you have any other remedies?
In addition to the terms of the shareholders’ agreement, you may have other legal remedies. If your JV partner is in breach of the shareholders’ agreement, you may have a breach of contract claim against them. If successful, this will usually result in the defaulting party having to pay damages to the non-defaulting party, but other remedies can include an injunction (which prohibits the defaulting party from continuing in its default; useful for example, if the party has broken its confidentiality obligations) or specific performance (which forces the other party to meet its contractual obligations; for example, where a party is obliged to obtain a third party consent and hasn’t done so).
There may be other claims available to you as well, including misrepresentation (where one party makes a false representation to you which induces you to act in a certain way) or claims for breaches of intellectual property.
Your legal advisors will be able to help here (see point 2).
5. Funding arrangements
Bear in mind the funding arrangements. If your JV partner provides some or all of the finance for the JV, what will happen to this if they dispose of their shareholding?
You also need to consider the terms of any third party funding in place. Having one JV partner leave the arrangement may, for example, be an event of default, although depending on the circumstances, you may be able to come to some arrangement with the funder.
6. Do you want to continue with the JV arrangement?
The answer to this is likely to depend on the situation. If, for example, one of the parties is in financial difficulties and is unable to contribute its share of the funding, but it also contributes know how and the relationship between you is still good, you may want to continue with the current JV arrangement and come to some agreement as to how to cover the other party’s funding obligations. However, if, say, the parties fundamentally disagree as to the future direction the JV business should take, it may be time to call it a day.
7. Selling your interest
Typically, the shareholders’ agreement (or the JV company’s articles of association) will set out the process if one party wants to sell their interest.
At the very least, parties are likely to want a pre-emption right (a right of first refusal) to purchase the other party’s shares before they’re sold to a third party, but options are likely to depend on the parties’ relationship and their role within the JV. For example, a minority shareholder might not want to be forced into accepting a new majority shareholder so may insist on being able to sell their shareholding to any third party purchaser that the majority shareholder wants to sell to (a tag along right). Conversely, third party purchasers are unlikely to want to have to deal with a minority shareholder and so a majority shareholder might insist on having a drag along right, where they can force the minority shareholder to sell to any third party purchaser. Other sale mechanisms are likely to be included where the JV parties have an equal interest in the JV.
8. Forcing your JV partner to sell its interest
The shareholders’ agreement may include situations in which one party is forced to dispose of their interest, often when that party is in material breach of the shareholders’ agreement. A process will usually be set out, including how the shares will be valued. Bear in mind however, that the provisions may provide that you have to acquire the shares of a defaulting party, failing which the JV company has to be wound up.
9. Keep open the dialogue
Ideally, continue talking with the other JV partner. Maintaining the relationship and talking about the dispute or issue causing the problem may lead to a resolution. If the problem boils down to a clash of personalities, the JV parties may be able to bring in new personnel to temper the situation. If the issue relates to a breach by one party, there may be a reasonable explanation behind the party’s actions.
Keeping the dialogue open, even when the JV arrangement is at an end, can ultimately reduce the amount of stress, number of man-hours and the amount of legal fees incurred in resolving the situation.
10. Maintain records
Keep a record of discussions held and emails sent between the JV parties. Not only can these be referred to at a later date to jog peoples’ memories or be used as evidence, they can also help your legal advisors to understand the situation and history.
The main takeaway from the above is to ensure that you have a detailed shareholders’ agreement in place from the outset of the JV arrangement. (If the JV entity is a limited liability partnership, an LLP agreement will be used instead. Where there is no corporate entity, the parties should still enter into a collaboration agreement or similar.)
Don’t shy away from discussing what will happen if the JV doesn’t work out; although contracts can’t cater for every eventuality, having a written process in place in case the relationship sours will make resolving the issue much more straightforward.
If you wish to discuss any of the above in more detail or think we may be able to help, please contact any member of our friendly Corporate team.
Disclaimer
This note reflects the law as at 14 May 2025. The circumstances of each case vary and this note should not be relied upon in place of specific legal advice.
The pivotal role of Family Governance for Asian family businesses
8 May 2025
Podcasts and videos
Watch highlights from our private wealth event in Singapore showcasing the growing importance of Family Governance for Asian family businesses.
On 11 February, our Asia team hosted the first of our flagship events in Singapore at the tail end of Chinese New Year celebrations. We had the pleasure of welcoming our network of private wealth intermediaries in the region for an evening filled with insightful discussion and valuable network.
The evening’s highlight was the keynote speech by our esteemed guest speaker, Ho Kwon Ping, founder and executive chairman of the Banyan Group. He shared his personal insights on the importance of Family Governance for Asian family businesses, emphasising its role in ensuring the long-term success of family enterprises for generations to come.
The event was also an opportunity to thank our contacts in Singapore, whom we have worked alongside to service our private clients in Asia for over 30 years and to reflect on our growing remit for advising private clients across the region. As well as our core private client services involving UK tax advisory, cross-border estate planning, and the growing demand for our family governance services, our specialists in trust and estate disputes, family and real estate are pivotal in supporting our clients in the region.
As a team that regularly travels to Asia to service our contacts and clients it was a special occasion to celebrate with our closest connections and share insights on the pivotal role of Family Governance in ensuring the successful future of family businesses across Asia.
