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 collaboration
are 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.