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
The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:
- The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
- How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
- Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.
The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.
In most circumstances the answer will be no. It would be an infringement of their human rights. It could also be a criminal assault.
However where there is a high risk to employees of exposure to COVID-19, such as care homes and healthcare environments, you might be able to make it a requirement of their role to have the vaccine.
First, consider whether you need to have a blanket requirement covering all employees or whether only certain groups who work in the most high risk areas require the vaccine.
You will need to do a thorough risk assessment balancing the amount that the risk of exposure would be reduced against the interference with the employee’s human rights. Consideration will need to be given as to whether insisting on the vaccine is proportionate to the risk and whether other less invasive steps could be taken instead, such as maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask, washing hands.
Any requirement for employees to be vaccinated should be communicated clearly to employees and trade unions together with a clear explanation for why it is necessary.
No, government advice remains that if employees can work from home, they should continue to do so in order to minimise social contact across the country in order to keep infection rates down.
If your visa has expired or will do before you are able to safely leave the UK, you can apply for “Exceptional Indemnity” by contacting the Coronavirus Immigration Team. You will need to provide evidence as to why you cannot leave, which could include a positive Covid-19 test or evidence of being unable to make travel arrangements to leave the UK in time.
You should note that “Exceptional Indemnity” does not extend your leave, but temporarily protects you from adverse action being made against you as result of overstaying your visa.
You should already have a written furlough agreement with your furloughed employees, but if you move them to flexible furlough then you need a new agreement that confirms the new furlough arrangement.
So, you’ll need to speak to your employees and confirm the hours of work with them in writing (or reach a collective agreement with a recognised Trade Union.
As before, an employee does not need to provide a written response. But the agreement needs to be documented in writing.