What is mediation?
Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution used to settle a dispute away from court. It can be used to settle many different disputes including those concerning arrangement for children following a separation and financial matters. It is entirely voluntary and requires both parties to engage in the process with an open mind. The parties would often provide each other with some preliminary information, in the case of a financial matter, this may be an exchange of financial disclosure, and then the role of the mediator is to facilitate discussions to help the parties reach a mutually acceptable settlement. Mediation can be tailored to fit the situation so if the parties are willing everybody can all sit in the same room to discuss matters or there may be shuttle mediation whereby the couples sit in separate rooms and the mediator moves between them relaying messages and opening up the discussion.
Mediation can be advantageous in many ways as it can be quicker and less expensive than court based resolution and it allows the couple to reach an agreement they both want rather than a decision being imposed on them by a court. However, they do require co-operation and openness from both parties. Couples can attend mediation without solicitors but solicitors can attend if both parties agree. It is also common to have solicitors representing clients in the background so that they understand their legal positon and consequences of the settlement they are negotiating.
Related FAQs
Under CBILS, for the purposes of calculating the applicant’s annual turnover, approved lenders have been aggregating turnover across the whole of the private equity investor’s portfolio meaning they failed to qualify for the scheme as they were deemed to exceed the £45 million threshold.
For private equity-backed businesses, the removal of the upper limit on annual turnover criteria for CLBILS seemingly avoids the issue of turnover aggregation across investment portfolios seen with the CBILS, potentially enabling more private equity sponsor portfolio companies to be able to access the CLBILS funding.
Hopefully, further guidance will provide additional clarification on this, but it is difficult to see how a charity whose operations have been significantly curtailed because of the Covid-19 restrictions, cannot furlough employees and access the scheme, in particular where they have several different income streams. For example if a charity’s retail or fundraising operations have been significantly curtailed due to the restrictions, then it would appear unfair for it not to able to rely on the furlough scheme to assist in the funding of the employment costs associated with this part of the charity.
However, it might be prudent, where there are services that are publicly funded and employees working within those services cannot undertake their normal work, to consider if they can do different roles to work on Covid-19 activities. If there is no such work available then the guidance does appear to allow the furloughing of employees and such organisations to access the scheme.
In our experience, the funding streams and work undertaken by the organisations that could fall into the third category identified above can be exceptionally diverse and we would strongly recommend that you take advice before making such decisions about furloughing employees.
Employers who have apprentices on fixed-term contracts due to end during the pandemic should discuss arrangements with the apprentices including whether an extension to the contract can be offered to allow them to complete their apprenticeship.
There is not a magic number. It depends on the nature of the organisation, the work carried out, the organisational structure, the geographical spread, working patterns and conditions. We would give specific advice personalised to the organisation and taking all these and other factors in to consideration. There is no such things as too many MHFAs!
Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.