With the focus now firmly set on all things Non-Court Dispute Resolution, it’s not surprising that the Family Court has recently confirmed the importance of maximising the dispute resolution options already built into the formal court process. 

Providing that there are exceptional reasons to do so, it is possible to invite a judge to dispense with a financial dispute resolution hearing (known as an FDR). The purpose of this hearing is for the parties to hear an independent evaluation of the likely outcome of their case and the risks (not to mention cost) of continued litigation. This evaluation will often result in a settlement being agreed either at the FDR hearing or shortly afterwards. 

In the recent case of GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel made it clear that factual disputes will not constitute an exceptional reason. He added that judges dealing with FDR’s are well able to deal with factual issues by expressing a view about their relevance and how they would be dealt with on the evidence available. In addition, that the FDR judge will also be able to provide an evaluation notwithstanding that one party’s position is not fully crystallised.

In this particular case it appeared that neither party had made any attempt at Non-Court Dispute Resolution, which made the need for a FDR all the more pressing. 

Dispute resolution is an integral part of the court process. FDR hearings are useful and certainly not something to be discouraged, even if there are missing puzzle pieces. Forgoing the very hearing that is designed to facilitate settlement should be a rarity. Mr Justice Peel overturned the first instance judge’s decision to dispense with the FDR hearing, saying “Anecdotally, it facilitates settlement in a significant number of cases. It is not only relatively straightforward cases which are susceptible to settlement at FDR. So, too, are complex cases. In my personal experience, even the most intractable case can yield to settlement at the FDR”.