In the last two days we have seen examples of outcomes and contrasting ways to reach an outcome. Depending upon your standpoint, the word humiliation may even be applied.
The Eurozone countries reached agreement over the Greek debt crisis after 17 hours of negotiations, demonstrating just how difficult reaching a consensus can be. Save in such extreme circumstances, I doubt if anyone would normally recommend overnight discussions which smack of locking the door and refusing to let anyone out until a workable solution is reached. Hanging over the negotiations was the apparent threat to force Greece out of the Eurozone, although it too had recently implied that it could leave without a fair deal.
In family proceedings face to face talks within collaborationare probably preferable, especially as in the latter case the parties agree that they will look to find answers to the issues they confront without litigation and are supported in this aim by everyone working together rather than in opposing camps. Mediation too allows much freer discussions. Any form of negotiating is, however, always open to the prospect of one party rail-roading the whole procedure with the threat of court action. Nobody should ever sign up to an agreement simply because they feel overly pressurised, negotiation-weary or frightened, without first having time to reflect on and rationalise the outcome proposed.
Otherwise and in the absence of a solution, court proceedings are inevitable. One only has to look at the Wimbledon final on Sunday between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, to understand how a court dispute resolves matters but not necessarily to both parties’ satisfaction. It is often said that in family proceedings there are no winners only losers, but the one thing that is certain is that there cannot, as that match on Centre Court surely demonstrated, be two winners.