The High Court has found that that a judge should not have dispensed with financial dispute resolution (FDR) in proceedings between a wife and husband, calling FDR an ‘integral part of the court process’.
In GH v GH, Mr Justice Peel overturned the judge’s decision to forego the FDR procedure, stating the value of the proceedings were proven ‘time and time again’. The unnamed judge made several orders in GH v GH, one of which was to dispense with FDR and proceed to a final hearing.
His reasoning for skipping the process were related to an ‘ongoing factual dispute about the wife’s earning capacity’. It was said that the wife’s position had not ‘crystallised so as to enable the FDR to be a success.’
However Mr Justice peel spoke in the High Court of the benefits of FDR and said : ‘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.’
He also added that it would be hard to imagine a situation ‘where FDR should be dispensed with, and they are very few and far between’.
The judgment acknowledged an FDR judge’s indications and observations of a case can be of ‘greatest utility’ in ‘hard cases where one or other part appears utterly intransigent’.
Michael Glaser KC, instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, represented the appellant. Rosanne Godfrey-Lockwood, instructed by Clintons, appeared for the respondent.