Financial Dispute Resolution hearings – or FDRs – are an integral part of the court process for dealing with the financial issues which arise on divorce and lead to settlement in a vast majority of cases.
They are essentially judge-led negotiations which are conducted on a “without prejudice” basis meaning, if a settlement is not achieved, nothing conceded can be put before the court at a final hearing and the judge who has conducted the FDR cannot be involved again.
The High Court has highlighted the utility of such hearings even in the most complex and intractable of cases.
My team and I regularly recommend the use of private FDRs to clients. These have all the benefits of a court-led FDR, more often than not leading to settlement, but with a privately appointed judge chosen by the parties who is able to dedicate more time to the case than a busy District Judge would be able to.
The in-court FDR process is disapplied and many of our clients do not even need to attend court at all with it often being possible to agree the directions which would otherwise need to be addressed at a First Directions Appointment to get a case ready for an FDR.
A private FDR can be arranged far quicker than waiting for a slot in the court lists leading to significant legal cost savings even taking account of the additional costs of the private judge.
This allows the parties to retain greater control over their own futures than allowing a judge at a final hearing to determine that for them.
If you would like to know more about the private FDR process or other alternative forms of dispute resolution, please get in touch.
The judge said it was ‘very hard to envisage a situation where the FDR should be dispensed with’ and situations which may justify going to a final hearing without the FDR ‘will be very few and far between’.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge-wrong-to-ditch-financial-dispute-resolution/5121099.article