Case Study: Finding a Way Forward After Years of Conflict

Illustration showing a separated couple pulling tangled threads apart, representing resolving conflict through family mediation

Life Before the Breakdown

Imran and Sana spent more than a decade building their life together. They raised four children and ran several small businesses – a post office, convenience stores and rental units linked to their commercial property. Their finances were fully intertwined. Everything depended on them working as a unit.

When the relationship broke down in 2021, that structure fell apart quickly. Conflict escalated. Solicitors became involved. Police were called. A non-molestation order followed, along with periods of bail conditions. Children matters moved into court. The children were eventually placed with Imran, while Sana’s contact became supervised. That process is still ongoing.

The financial side went nowhere. Over almost five years, two separate consent orders were drafted and rejected by the court. Around £137,000 was spent on legal fees. Nothing resolved. By the time they reached mediation, both were exhausted and stuck.

I became involved at this point, after years of litigation had failed to move things forward. By the time mediation was suggested, the conflict was entrenched, trust was low, and both were carrying the weight of a process that had drained them emotionally and financially.

A Complex Financial Picture

The paperwork showed how difficult their situation really was. There was a family home with a large mortgage, a commercial property in Sana’s name with a long-standing charge, three businesses with significant valuations, and rental income tied directly to the premises. Debts exceeded £250,000, including a Funding Circle loan of more than £70,000 and historic HMRC arrears.

Years of conflict had damaged their credit history. Selling assets was not straightforward. Any move risked destabilising both households.

Despite everything, they still relied on each other financially. The businesses only worked with shared involvement. Without that, neither could manage alone. This was not about dividing assets cleanly. It was about working out how two people who could no longer live together could still keep a fragile system afloat.

Coming to Mediation

Sana contacted Salam Mediation first. She sounded drained, but not defeated. Imran was hesitant, which was understandable given the history. He agreed after the court recommended mediation.

On paper, this was the sort of case many mediators would decline. Court orders, high conflict, financial interdependence, and a long trail of failed legal attempts. But when I listened, I heard fear and exhaustion rather than hostility. Turning them away would have sent them straight back into the same cycle.

Early Meetings: Slowing Things Down

The early sessions focused on listening. They explained how the businesses ran and how decisions had been made. Sana spoke about feeling excluded from financial matters. Imran described the pressure of holding everything together as the relationship deteriorated.

Much of what they shared came from emotion rather than clarity. My role was to slow the pace and separate the two, so the information underneath could be understood.

That alone changed something. Not trust in each other, but trust in the process. For the first time in years, there was space to talk without things escalating.

Creating a Shared Picture

The Open Financial Statement shifted the dynamic. Seeing everything laid out side by side made it clear that many of their arguments were not really about the numbers. They were about fear and uncertainty.

Once the figures were visible and agreed, the tone changed. They stopped reacting and started thinking. Practical conversations became possible.

Proposals and Legal Advice

With that clarity, they could explore realistic proposals. Any settlement had to protect both households and allow the businesses to continue operating. I recorded their proposals in a Memorandum of Understanding.

Both were anxious about involving solicitors again. Previous experiences had been bruising. This time, the meetings were calmer. Focused. Grounded in a shared understanding of how their finances actually worked.

It became clear that without context, legal advice risked missing the reality of the businesses. That led to the next step.

The Hybrid Mediation Session

We arranged a short hybrid mediation session with both solicitors present. I explained how the businesses operated, how income flowed between them, and why certain decisions mattered for stability.

Without that explanation, advice would have been based on assumption rather than fact. This session kept things aligned and prevented progress from unravelling.

Finalising the Settlement

After legal advice, the consent order was drafted and the D81 completed. By mid-November – less than three weeks after mediation began – everything was ready for court.

Given the history, that still stands out to me.

The Court Hearing

The financial hearing had been listed for two days. It concluded in around twenty minutes.

Nearly five years of litigation ended once the situation was properly understood.

Afterwards, during a follow-up call, Imran said quietly, “I wish we had tried mediation at the very beginning.”

Closing Reflection

If I had focused only on the surface – the court orders, the bail history, the financial entanglement – it would have been easy to say this case was unsuitable. Many mediators would have reached that decision, reasonably.

But listening beyond the conflict showed something else. Beneath the anger sat fear, exhaustion and a wish to move on. They did not need someone to validate their positions. They needed space and structure long enough for clarity to return.

This case did not resolve because it was simple. It resolved because, for the first time, they were able to think clearly and communicate without the noise of ongoing conflict.

For Imran and Sana, mediation did not just resolve a financial dispute.
It gave them a way forward that litigation never had.

This article is based on a real case handled by Salam Mediation. All names and identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

 

If mediation is of interest to you contact Salam Mediation  click here

Why Your Financial Settlement Matters: A Simple Message After LIN v PAR

Illustration of two people signing and stamping a financial settlement document with a law book on the table.

Why Your Financial Settlement Matters

The recent LIN v PAR [2025] case has made a lot of people think twice about how they handled things when they separated. It involved a couple who had been apart for more than twenty years. They genuinely thought their finances were sorted. They moved on, built new lives, and never expected anything from the past to return. But because their financial settlement was never completed properly, the door was still open. A claim was made years later, and the whole thing had to be revisited.

This kind of situation is more common than people realise. Many couples agree things informally and believe that is enough. It feels calm and respectful at the time. But the law doesn’t see it as final until it becomes a sealed order. Without that, the past can sit quietly in the background.

What Went Wrong

In their case, they had reached an agreement, but nothing was taken to court. No sealed order. No clean break in the legal sense. So even after two decades of separate lives, one person was still able to bring a financial claim. It isn’t about blame. They didn’t know. Most people don’t.

Why This Affects People Now

When I speak with clients, many say things like:

  • “We agreed everything ourselves.”

  • “We didn’t want anything formal.”

  • “We get on fine; we don’t need that level of paperwork.”

But informal arrangements don’t close financial rights. Life changes. People buy homes, pensions grow, someone inherits money, or takes on new responsibilities. These things can be pulled into a dispute later if the finances were never finalised. Even if both people had good intentions at the time.

A sealed financial order is what closes it.

How Mediation Helps

Mediation gives you time and space to go through your finances properly. No rush, no pressure. You lay out what you have, what you owe, and what you need moving forward. You talk it through in a way that keeps things steady. Most people find that once everything is on the table, it becomes easier to make practical decisions.

You reach proposals together. After that, a solicitor can prepare the order for the court to seal. That step is what protects both of you. Even people who get on well benefit from doing this properly. It avoids misunderstandings later.

If mediation doesn’t resolve everything, there are other ways to sort things without going straight to court. The Family Court actively encourages people to try non-court routes first. Court should only come in when nothing else works.

Why a Clean Break Matters

A clean break gives you clarity. You know where you stand. You know your future finances are yours, and your past won’t suddenly reappear later. It allows both of you to move forward with confidence. The LIN v PAR case is simply a reminder of what can happen when something important is left unfinished.

A Simple Thought to End On

If you separated recently or even years ago, it might be worth checking where things stand. You may have reached an agreement at the time, but it may not have been completed formally. Sorting it out now doesn’t have to be complicated. Mediation gives you a calm way to deal with it and then put it on a secure footing.

If you’re unsure, we can talk it through. It’s better to know than to be caught by surprise later.

If mediation is of interest to you contact Salam Mediation  click here

TOLATA and Property Disputes: Rights for Unmarried Couples and How Mediation Can Help

Vector illustration of a house split in two with a man and woman sitting apart, symbolising separation and property disputes under TOLATA.

Many couples live together for years, sharing a home, raising children and building a life side by side. When that relationship ends, one of the hardest questions often follows: what happens to the home we lived in?

This is where many people are caught by surprise. They assume that living together creates legal rights, sometimes called a “common law marriage.” In England and Wales, no such protection exists. If you are not married or in a civil partnership, your rights over property are much more limited.

Instead, disputes over property ownership are usually dealt with under a law called the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 — TOLATA for short. It gives the courts power to decide who owns what share of a property, and in some cases, whether it should be sold.

At Salam Mediation, we often meet people who are shocked to find out how different the rules are for unmarried couples. We also see how quickly arguments about property can turn bitter, especially if children are involved. Mediation gives you a safer and calmer way to sort things out.

What is TOLATA and Who Does it Affect?

TOLATA applies when people disagree about property ownership. It is most common with separating unmarried couples, but it can also affect friends, relatives, or even business partners who own property together.

Examples include:

  • A house is in one partner’s name, but the other has helped pay the mortgage.

  • Both names are on the deeds, but the couple disagree about their shares.

  • Parents or relatives have contributed money to buy a property and later want that contribution recognised.

Think of it like this: if your name isn’t on the deeds but you’ve invested time, money or effort into the home, you may still feel you have a right to it. TOLATA is the framework the court uses to decide if you do.

TOLATA vs Family Court: What’s the Difference?

Married couples and unmarried couples are treated very differently under the law.

Married / Civil PartnersUnmarried Couples (TOLATA)
Apply to Family Court for a financial settlementApply to Civil Court under TOLATA
Court considers the whole financial picture — property, pensions, savings, debts, children’s needsCourt only considers property ownership and rights of occupation
Judge can redistribute assets to achieve fairnessJudge has narrow powers: decide shares, order sale, or allow occupation


This difference catches many people out. Married couples can ask the court to look at “fairness.” Unmarried couples cannot — the court only looks at property law.

What the Court Considers under TOLATA

When a judge decides a TOLATA claim, they look at:

  • Intentions of the parties — Did you both intend the home to be shared, even if only one name is on the deeds?

  • Financial contributions — Deposits, mortgage payments, renovations, or covering household bills.

  • Non-financial contributions — Raising children or looking after the home, which freed the other partner to earn.

  • Purpose of the property — Was it bought as a family home or as an investment?

  • Children’s welfare — If children live there, this can affect who stays in the property.

Two famous cases show how the law works:

  • Stack v Dowden (2007) — A couple jointly owned their home but contributed unequally. The court decided they did not automatically own it 50/50.

  • Jones v Kernott (2011) — After separation, one partner stopped contributing. The court reduced their share, showing that behaviour after separation matters.

Going to Court under TOLATA

If people cannot agree, one of them can make a TOLATA claim in the civil court.

It usually begins with a formal letter setting out the claim. If the dispute isn’t resolved, court proceedings follow, with evidence, hearings, and possibly a trial.

Court cases are not quick or cheap. They often take more than a year, and legal costs can easily reach £20,000 to £50,000 for each person. On top of that, the losing side may have to pay the other’s costs.

This is why judges strongly encourage people to try mediation first.

Mediation vs TOLATA Court

Court (TOLATA)Mediation
Judge decidesYou decide
Expensive (£25k–£50k each)Affordable (£1k–£2.5k total)
Long (18–24 months)Quicker (2–4 months)
Adversarial and stressfulConfidential and constructive
Limited outcomesFlexible — for example, delaying a sale until children finish school


Mediation doesn’t mean giving in. It means sitting down with a neutral person to find practical solutions that work for both of you.

How Mediation Works in TOLATA Disputes

At Salam Mediation, we guide you through a simple process:

  1. MIAM (Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting) — each of you meets the mediator separately to explain your situation.

  2. Agenda setting — together we decide what to focus on first, whether that’s ownership, sale, buy-out or timing.

  3. Joint sessions — discussions take place in a safe and neutral space. If tensions are high, “shuttle” mediation can be used so you don’t have to sit in the same room.

  4. Exploring proposals — each side puts forward ideas. The mediator helps keep things fair and constructive.

  5. Written outcome — any proposals are recorded. If you both agree, they can be made legally binding through a Consent Order.

Everything said in mediation is confidential. Nothing can be used in court if mediation does not succeed.

Preventing Future Disputes

Some simple steps can save a lot of heartache later:

  • Sign a Cohabitation Agreement when you move in together.

  • Make a Declaration of Trust when you buy property.

  • Keep records of financial contributions, including household bills and renovations.

  • Talk openly about ownership and expectations early on.

Why Choose Salam Mediation?

Property disputes are not just about bricks and mortar. They are about people’s lives, security and children’s futures.

At Salam Mediation we offer:

  • Accessible support — we can often see you at short notice.

  • Affordable sessions compared to the cost of going to court.

  • Inclusive practice — we are faith-sensitive, culturally aware, and respectful of diverse communities.

  • Bilingual services — fluent in English and Bengali, with Portuguese and other languages available.

We provide impartial, professional mediation that helps you move forward with dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have rights if my name isn’t on the deeds?
You might. If you’ve contributed financially or there was an understanding that the home would be shared, you could have a claim under TOLATA.

How long does mediation take?
Most cases are resolved in 2 to 4 months. Court can take more than a year.

Can mediation agreements be legally binding?
Yes. A solicitor can turn your mediated proposals into a Consent Order, approved by the court.

What evidence helps with a TOLATA claim?
Bank statements, mortgage payments, receipts for improvements, and any written or verbal agreements.

Final Thoughts

Unmarried couples do not have the same rights as married couples when they separate. TOLATA provides a legal route, but going to court is usually slow, stressful and expensive.

Mediation gives you a chance to resolve disputes in a calmer, more affordable way — and to reach solutions that actually work for your family.

If mediation is of interest to you contact Salam Mediation  click here

New Family Procedure Rules (FPR): Promoting Out-of-Court Settlements

Illustration of a person carrying a large arrow with a speech bubble saying NCDR, representing Non-Court Dispute Resolution for family conflicts.

The Family Procedure Rules (FPR) were changed in April 2024 to put even greater emphasis on resolving family disputes through Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR), formerly also referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

While some clients prefer going to court, believing that a court verdict carries more weight, there has been a movement in the courts and as directed by legislation, towards resolving family disputes through out-of-court settlements. These are often quicker, less stressful, and less expensive. They have the added benefit of relieving load on the court system.

The new rules require that all family cases be considered for out-of-court resolution.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR)

NCDR is resolution achieved through methods other than a court process, consisting of mediation, arbitration, evaluation by a neutral third party, and / or collaborative law.

The new FPR rules mandate court scrutiny of MIAM (Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting) attendance and NCDR activity. Additionally, there is a stronger emphasis on attending a MIAM. While it is still not mandatory, there are now fewer exceptions allowed, and evidence is required for any exemptions claimed.

Gaps between hearings in the court proceedings will be used for ‘judicial nudging’ to encourage MIAM and NCDR. At every court hearing, the judge will be assessing if NCDR is appropriate and if not why not. Clients may be required to engage in NCDR before being allowed to continue with the hearing.

NCDR vs Seeking Resolution Through the Courts

Some clients still prefer going to court to resolve their issues, believing that a judge’s decision holds more weight, however, out-of-court settlements are usually quicker, less stressful and less expensive.

There’s also the personal factor that can lead people to prefer a court hearing. Relationships that have failed may end with hostility between the parties and attempts to resolve outstanding issues result in conflict. The legal system is adversarial, which suits the mood of battling ex-partners.

It also adds to the conflict and the stress experienced by them, and that can have a knock-on effect on the children.

Court Case Load

It should also be noted that the total case load being heard by the courts is so much that there are long delays in getting court dates. According to one assessment the average time to resolution in court is 435 days, compared to 110 days in mediation. The difference in cost was determined to be on average £1000 with mediation, or £30,000 through the courts. Delays are expensive and stressful.

Role of Solicitors and Legal Professionals

As with the public at large, some solicitors prefer a confrontational approach to negotiation, often leading to a court hearing. 

With the new FPR rules placing greater emphasis on NCDR, solicitors are being encouraged to embrace this approach. With the judicial encouragement of NCDR, reluctant solicitors will be required to go along with it. Simple refusal to engage in mediation, or superficial compliance with the requirement will no longer be accepted. Clients must provide detailed justification why they believe NCDR is inappropriate for them. Clients will be required to file with the court their views on using NCDR.

With the applicability of NCDR being reviewed through the different phases of a court hearing, once there is more information about the case before judges they are better able to assess the merit of referring the litigants to NCDR.

Exemptions to the Requirement to Attend MIAMs

The requirement to attend MIAMs is not absolute. Where there is concern about domestic abuse, or if one or both clients are unable to attend meetings, or lack the facilities for remote meetings, exemptions can and will be made.

If there is a suspicion of domestic abuse, the mediator will simply report to the court that NCDR is not appropriate. The mediator will not expose the client by specifying domestic abuse in the report.

The Role of Mediation

For now, mediation is still not mandatory and in specific cases never will be, but there is stronger encouragement to engage in it, and more rigorous proof required to avoid it.

It’s been mentioned before, but is worth repeating that NCDR is cheaper, quicker and less stressful than taking the matter to court.

It’s worth noting that the refusal of one of the parties to attend a MIAM will not be allowed to delay proceedings. A judge will order an assessment, investigation, and report.

Government Mediation Grant

The government has introduced a voucher of up to £500 for child arrangements mediation. This will encourage people to pursue mediation when before they may have been more inclined towards in-person litigation.

 

If mediation is of interest to you contact Salam Mediation  click here