In the recent case of GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam), Mr. Justice Peel delivered a significant judgment that underscores the critical role of Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) in family law proceedings. This case serves as a poignant reminder of why the FDR process should rarely be bypassed, even in complex financial remedy cases.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal against interim orders made during financial remedy proceedings. The central issue was the decision to dispense with the FDR and proceed directly to a final hearing. The appellant, referred to as the Wife (W), challenged this decision, arguing that the FDR process is essential for a fair and just resolution.
The Court’s Reasoning
Mr. Justice Peel’s judgment provides a detailed analysis of the circumstances under which an FDR can be dispensed with, as outlined in FPR 9.15(4)(b). The rule states that a case must be referred to an FDR appointment unless there are “exceptional reasons” making such a referral inappropriate. In this case, the initial judge had decided to bypass the FDR due to ongoing factual disputes about the Wife’s earning capacity and the lack of crystallisation of her position.
However, Mr. Justice Peel emphasised that these reasons were insufficient to justify dispensing with the FDR. He highlighted that the FDR process is designed to handle such complexities and disputes. The FDR judge can provide an independent evaluation of the likely outcome, helping parties understand the risks and benefits of continued litigation.
The Value of FDR
The judgment reiterates the value of the FDR process in family law. Mr. Justice Peel noted that the FDR’s without prejudice status allows the judge to look beyond litigation posturing and give clear, robust views. This process often facilitates settlements, even in the most intractable cases. The FDR judge’s role is to provide a realistic assessment of the case, which can be instrumental in guiding parties towards a resolution.
Exceptional Circumstances
Mr. Justice Peel acknowledged that there might be rare situations where an FDR could be dispensed with, such as when one party has not engaged at all or has explicitly stated they will not attend the FDR. However, these situations are few and far between. In the case of GH v GH, the judge found no such exceptional circumstances. The essential facts and resources were clear, and there was no impediment to the parties making offers or the court giving a firm steer.
Conclusion
The judgment in GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam) serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of the FDR process in family law. It underscores that the FDR should not be bypassed lightly, as it plays a vital role in facilitating settlements and providing a realistic assessment of the case. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the FDR process remains a cornerstone of financial remedy proceedings, promoting fair and just outcomes for all parties involved.
For family law practitioners, this judgment reinforces the need to advocate for the FDR process and to recognise its value in resolving disputes efficiently and effectively. It also serves as a guide for judges in assessing whether exceptional circumstances truly warrant dispensing with the FDR, ensuring that this critical step in the legal process is preserved.
