A contested private financial remedy cost a couple £37,000 over just 46 words in a decision over whether a husband was entitled to refer to events which took place at a private FDR.
In a contested financial remedy, Justice Peel considered the case of BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236 following contested financial remedy proceedings between a husband (H) and wife (W) after the breakdown of their marriage. The central issue was a dispute over the confidentiality of a private Financial Dispute Resolution (pFDR) hearing.
The parties had agreed to attend a two-day private FDR (pFDR). After the first day W and her legal team left the process. H subsequently submitted an open proposal that included critical comments about W’s decision to leave, implying she had acted ‘impulsively and unreasonably.’ W objected, arguing that these comments breached the confidentiality of the pFDR process and were intended to prejudice the trial judge against her. She applied to have the comments struck out from H’s open proposal and requested that the application be heard by a judge other than the trial judge to preserve impartiality.
In arriving at his determination, Mr Justice Peel cites precedent which outlines the content of FDRs are confidential and intended for open, without-prejudice negotiation. Disclosure of what is said or done during an FDR is generally inadmissible. As the case centred on the permissibility of referencing conduct during a pFDR in open court documents, rather than any financial division, Justice Peel also reaffirmed the conduct of parties during FDRs is protected from disclosure, citing Sir James Munby’s comments in V v W [2020] EWFC 84.
In his final comments Mr Justice Peel concluded
“… the essential principle is that what is said and done at the FDR/pFDR cannot be subsequently deployed by either party… I therefore accede to W’s application and order that the offending words are deleted. The amended version should bear the same date as the original offer.”
He added the apparent ‘practice developing of parties attending a court hearing after the pFDR, and one blaming the other for the pFDR coming to an end, in particular asserting that the pFDR ended when the other party left after the indication without further negotiating’ should cease immediately
“What matters here is not how parties characterise each other’s behaviour at the pFDR, but what they are actually proposing openly.”
One Response
Amazing that the H sought fit to litigate on this well-established point, he must love his lawyer, loathe his ex-wife or have enough money that this is small change.