Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR): What You Need To Know

When families face conflict, the instinct is often to prepare for court proceedings; however, the law increasingly recognises that adversarial litigation is not always the most constructive way forward. Non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) offers an alternative, focusing on settlement through structured negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other collaborative approaches. At Skylark Hill, we work with clients every day who are weighing whether to pursue court action or to resolve matters privately, and we see the difference that NCDR can make - in outcomes, in costs, and in the emotional toll it takes on families.

What Does NCDR Mean in Practice?

Non-court dispute resolution refers to methods of settling disagreements without a judge making the final decision. Mediation, collaborative law, early neutral evaluation, and arbitration all fall under this umbrella. Each method has its own procedure and suitability, but what links them is a commitment to dialogue, compromise, and privacy.

For example, mediation allows both parties to sit down with a neutral professional who facilitates discussion, helping them to reach their own agreement. Collaborative law involves each party instructing a lawyer who is trained to work cooperatively rather than confrontationally. Arbitration, meanwhile, resembles court in that a qualified arbitrator makes a binding decision, but it is chosen voluntarily and conducted privately, usually much faster than litigation.

The choice of route often depends on what’s at stake. Financial settlements, child arrangements, and property matters can all be handled outside of court provided both parties agree to participate.

Why NCDR Is Encouraged by the Courts

Judges in family cases are increasingly urging parties to try non-court dispute resolution before a hearing. In fact, if you issue proceedings without at least exploring mediation, you may be asked to explain why. The reasoning is straightforward: courts are under significant pressure, and lengthy delays are common. More importantly, NCDR generally leads to outcomes that feel more balanced, as both parties have greater input into shaping the agreement.

At Skylark Hill, we’ve seen clients who initially felt anxious about the prospect of NCDR discover that the process gave them more control. Instead of waiting months for a court date and handing decisions over to a judge, they were able to resolve key issues in weeks, on terms that suited their family dynamic.

The Benefits of Avoiding Litigation

Cost is one of the clearest advantages. Court proceedings involve multiple hearings, extensive legal preparation, and unpredictable outcomes, which can quickly escalate fees. By contrast, NCDR tends to be more proportionate, as sessions are usually shorter and require less procedural formality.

Time is another major factor. A court timetable is dictated by the system, not by the parties. Mediation sessions, arbitration hearings, and collaborative meetings can be arranged flexibly, often allowing matters to conclude far sooner than litigation.

Finally, there is the relational aspect. Litigation can deepen divisions, fuelling hostility that lingers long after the case has ended. NCDR, by design, reduces confrontation and encourages constructive dialogue. That doesn’t mean it is always easy, but it does mean that agreements reached are more likely to be workable and lasting.

When NCDR May Not Be Appropriate