Reduced private law sitting days creates ‘uncertainty’ as opportunities for FDR cut

Family professionals have been left ‘extremely concerned’ by the news there will be significant cuts to the number sitting days in the London Financial Remedies Court, reducing the number of opportunities for financial remedies proceedings. 

Speaking this week, the president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane said judicial resources will be cut due to insufficient allocation of family court sitting days for the 2025/26 financial year following a requirement from the Ministry of Justice more family court time be scheduled for public law cases. The proportion of financial remedies work will fall to less than the 13% of total sitting days currently allocated; which have not proved to be enough the result of which is planned FDR sitting days will be cancelled causing ‘some unwelcome difficulties’ acknowledged McFarlane. It is understood financial remedy hearings will be double-listed alongside trials and overflow courts at the Royal Courts of Justice will also be suspended

The impact on clients could lead to ‘wasted costs, delay and significant uncertainty’ said one family professional on the issue of double booking longer hearings. Jessica Reid, partner at Dawson Cornwell, said:

“It risks forcing many into last minute private arbitration, increasing the costs, and widening the gap between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Once cuts of this nature are implemented, they rarely reverse, and the long-term outlook for access to justice in this area is bleak.”

Cases already been listed will remain confirmed McFarlane, but short hearings could be moved; a plan to ‘recalibrate’ the list for the rest of the year has been drawn up.

For longer hearings court staff will confirm in the two weeks before the primary trial it is still going ahead; whereupon the back up will be rescheduled within three months, but there are no guarantees. The courts will attempt to inform the back up at least three working days before the listed start date and have said they will not be responsible for any costs as a result of postponement.

Want to have your say? Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read more stories

Join nearly 3,000 other family practitioners - Check back daily for all the latest news, views, insights and best practice and sign up to our e-newsletter to receive our weekly round up every Thursday morning. 

You’ll receive the latest updates, analysis, and best practice straight to your inbox.

Features

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.