FDR vs pFDR Hearings: Understanding the Differences and Benefits

What is an FDR hearing?

A Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing is typically the second stage of the court’s financial remedy process. Its primary purpose is to create a meaningful opportunity for parties to reach a negotiated financial settlement without progressing to a final hearing, saving time, reducing stress and limiting legal costs.

Before the FDR hearing, the separating parties will have attended a First Directions Appointment (FDA) hearing, where the judge will have decided what further information was needed to progress the case. For example, this may include obtaining property valuations if the value is disputed, or a pension report. This hearing will also set out the financial disclosure which needs to be exchanged prior to the FDR hearing.

The FDR hearing will then take place on a ‘without prejudice’ basis meaning that each proposal made by either party will not be binding at any further hearings. The FDR is an evaluative hearing, during which the judge provides an independent, informed indication on the likely outcome if the case were to proceed to the final hearing. This is intended to guide negotiations, help narrow the issues and promote settlement.

Limitations of a court‑based FDR hearing

Despite the benefits of an FDR hearing, they are subject to a number of limitations which include but are not limited to:-

• Significant delays in the court timetable.
• Time constraints due to each hearing being listed for only one hour.
• Limited judicial availability which restricts the time a judge can dedicate to the case.
• The court environment can be stressful for those involved, reducing the success rate of negotiations between parties.

As a result of these limitations, more people are electing to schedule private FDR hearings rather than utilising the court-based system.

What is a pFDR hearing?

Private Financial Dispute Resolution (pFDR) hearings were introduced into the courts in 1996 on a trial basis and have since become a well-established alternative to FDR hearings, broadly mirroring their structure and purpose outside of the court system.

Once your matter reaches the FDR stage of proceedings, rather than waiting for the court to allocate a court hearing date at least six months’ away, the parties book a mutually convenient date and a judge. The judge is either a barrister or retired judge, who acts as an independent pFDR Evaluator. This means that you are able to select someone with the relevant expertise to your case. He is she is booked for the whole day or more as required, and will read all the papers in advance of the hearing date.  This is especially relevant as within the court-based system, FDR hearings are usually listed for one hour and the judge rarely has time to read much of the case papers. Also, there is a real risk that the court will cancel the hearing at short notice due to the lack of availability of court time and/or judicial availability. The Evaluator often remains available post hearing to clarify their indications or to assist if final points require resolving. This allows the parties involved the opportunity to engage in meaningful negotiations.

A pFDR hearing is usually held in barrister’s Chambers or a private office, therefore reducing the stress of attending court as the parties have access to private rooms, refreshments and a more comfortable setting. This can often result in more successful outcomes.

The flexibility of this environment also allows for the parties to provide their submissions to the Evaluator independently.  This is beneficial in sensitive cases, such as those where there has been domestic abuse, as it allows parties to attend the hearing without meeting one another.

Limitations of FDRs

Although, both FDRs and pFDR hearings have a range of benefits, there are limitations which individuals may want to consider.

The indication given at either hearing is not legally binding therefore, any agreement reached must be formalised by way of a Consent Order and approved by the court to become enforceable. In cases where the parties are not able to settle, they will need to return to court for further directions.

Those involved will also need to pay the cost of the Evaluator. However, conducting the hearing privately means that it is unlikely to be cancelled.

Therefore, while a pFDR hearing does involve an upfront cost, as the Evaluator must be remunerated for their attendance, fees can vary considerably meaning that private FDR hearings remain accessible in many cases. As discussed above, pFDR hearings also provide a more conducive environment for negotiation, increasing the likelihood of reaching a settlement and thereby reducing the additional financial and emotional burden associated with proceeding to a final hearing.

Final Thoughts

Both FDR and pFDR hearings are designed to help separating couples reach a fair financial settlement without the need for a final hearing. However, given the increasing delays and pressures on the family courts, a pFDR hearing offers a flexible, efficient and frequently more effective route to resolution.

If you are navigating financial arrangements following a separation, a pFDR hearing may therefore be a valuable option to consider. So contact a member of the team today to talk through your circumstance to get advice and guidance on your next steps.