For many separating couples, the family court is already an uphill climb – emotionally charged, financially draining and beset by delays. Hearings can be difficult to secure, listings are tight, and cancellations are increasingly common. Against that backdrop, the recent announcement to reduce financial remedy sitting days from late 2025 feels like a step backwards for families seeking resolution.
What may sound like a minor scheduling change is likely to have serious consequences. Families could face further months of limbo, last-minute cancellations, and mounting costs while their lives remain on hold.
What the change means in practice
The plan to reduce sitting days is part of a wider effort to “rebalance” judicial resources. In reality, it means more hearings will be moved, double-booked or cancelled at short notice when only one can proceed. Courts will be stretched even thinner, and each stage of financial remedy cases is likely take longer to progress.
For families already under strain, the disruption can be devastating. When a final hearing is suddenly removed from the list at the last minute, the impact reaches far beyond inconvenience. Clients may have taken time off work, paid for childcare and spent thousands preparing evidence. Barristers’ fees will often be non-refundable, and expert reports and disclosure may need updating before a new hearing date can be found.
The financial loss can be substantial – but the emotional toll is even greater. These hearings determine homes, pensions and children’s futures. To be told close to the day that a long-awaited hearing has been cancelled can leave families feeling powerless and deflated, having lost faith in the Court system.
A growing divide between those who can pay and those who can’t
Cuts to sitting days risk deepening the divide between those who can afford private alternatives and those who cannot. Wealthier clients are likely to turn to arbitration or private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings, where timetables are flexible and certainty is guaranteed. Those without the means will be left waiting in an overstretched public system with no assurance that their case will proceed as planned.
Justice should not depend on personal wealth. Yet unless this resourcing crisis is addressed, that is precisely the direction of travel. The danger is a two-tier system – with access to timely justice becoming a privilege rather than a right.
Private and out-of-court options
While the public courts remain the default, there are alternatives worth considering if circumstances allow:
- Mediation: A mediator helps couples reach a negotiated settlement. It’s often less adversarial and cheaper, though it relies on both parties’ cooperation and good faith.
- Arbitration: Parties appoint a qualified arbitrator – usually a senior barrister or retired judge – to make a binding decision. The process mirrors the court’s but is faster and more flexible.
- Early neutral evaluations of private hearings: These often replicate court settlement hearings but are conducted by a privately instructed “judge” in a neutral setting, offering focused judicial input and reduced delay. This can include financial disputes (in the form of a private Financial Dispute Resolution hearing) and children matters where an independent perspective may assist the parties in reaching agreement.
Although these options involve upfront cost, they can ultimately save money — and stress – compared with repeated adjournments and wasted preparation time in the public system.
Planning for uncertainty
For those remaining within the court process, solicitors should manage expectations early, explaining that adjournments are increasingly likely. Clients should plan for the possibility of delay and explore out-of-court options from the outset. Even where litigation remains unavoidable, knowing what alternatives exist can provide reassurance and reduce anxiety when plans change unexpectedly.
A system under strain
The decision to cut sitting days is a symptom of a deeper problem: chronic underfunding of the family courts and a shortage of judges. Court staff and practitioners are working tirelessly, but the system is at breaking point. Reducing available hearing times may meet broader administrative targets, but it does nothing to help the families waiting for decisions.
Family justice is not an exercise in efficiency. Behind every case file is a family in distress, often with children caught in the middle. When hearings are cancelled or delayed, it is not just timetables that suffer – it is the future of those families.
If the government is serious about supporting families, it must invest properly in the courts and people who deliver justice. Families deserve better than cancellations and uncertainty. They deserve a family justice system that is properly resourced, accessible and capable of delivering timely, fair outcomes.
Lois Rogers is a partner at Ribet Myles
