When does Complete Confidentiality & Privacy apply to Family Law Hearings? An Analysis of the (private) Financial Dispute Resolution hearing
If you are involved in family law proceedings, you can expect the process to remain private, and you have a right to expect that the documents you provide will be kept confidential. Maintaining confidentiality in private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings is a key aspect of these proceedings. This article does not address Transparency in Family Law Proceedings, which will be discussed separately.
In theory, the media can apply to attend any hearing, and the Judge decides whether to allow their presence. The Judge also determines, on a case-by-case basis, what the media may report. However, the media cannot report on Financial Dispute Resolution Hearings.
A private FDR is the second of three possible hearings in the financial remedy process. Increasingly, couples choose to hold these hearings privately, outside the court. This gives them control over the process, helps them avoid court backlogs, and ensures that the media cannot attend.
What is a (private) financial dispute resolution hearing?
This type of hearing, commonly known as a pFDR, provides a private alternative to the second court-listed hearing in financial remedy proceedings: a financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR). The parties use this hearing to try to reach a negotiated settlement with the assistance of a Judge.
Due to significant delays within the family court system, many spouses choose to arrange a pFDR instead, as they can schedule it much sooner than a court-listed FDR. The parties fund the process themselves and pay for the Judge’s time, which allows them to secure an earlier date. In a pFDR, the Judge is referred to as the Evaluator.
If you would like to know more about the benefits of private FDRs, please read our blog here
What is does ‘Without Prejudice’ mean?
All types of FDRs operate on a “without prejudice” basis. This means the parties keep everything they say, offer, or discuss entirely private. They cannot refer to those discussions later in court or show them to the judge at a Final Hearing.
At both a private FDR (pFDR) and a court-based FDR, the Judge performs a single, limited role. The Judge gives guidance on the likely outcome and indicates what settlement they consider reasonable in light of all the circumstances. After giving that indication, the Judge must take no further part in the case. Because the process guarantees confidentiality, spouses feel able to negotiate openly, make realistic proposals, and often put forward their best offers without fear that a future trial judge will see them if the matter proceeds to a Final Hearing.
By contrast, the opposite of “without prejudice” is “open.” When a party communicates on an open basis, the court can refer to and rely on that material. It is not private and may be shown to the judge at a final hearing.
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
The principle of confidentiality in (p)FDRs was reviewed by the Court in 2025. This occurred in the case of BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236. The Husband (H) and Wife (W) agreed to attend a two-day pFDR. They did this in the hopes a settlement could be reached.
On the first day of the hearing, the Evaluator (the Judge) gave an indication of the likely outcome if the matter proceeded to a Final Hearing. Following that indication, the Wife chose to withdraw from the process and left the building with her legal team.
The next day, the Husband wrote to the Wife on an open basis, beginning:
“We write further to the first day of the private FDR before the pFDR evaluator yesterday. Of course, today would have been the second day of the hearing were it not for your client’s retrograde decision to leave the building yesterday, not thirty minutes after receiving the pFDR’s written indication.”
“Husband hopes very much that, despite Wife’s impulsive decision to end the pFDR process so immediately yesterday, some sense will now prevail.”
The Wife objected to this wording in open correspondence because it referred to events that occurred during the pFDR, which are confidential. On 18 July 2025, she applied to the Court for an order requiring the Husband to remove those words from the open letter. She argued that the wording breached the confidentiality of the pFDR and risked prejudicing the judge at any Final Hearing against her.
The Husband argued that the wording merely set out logistical details. He maintained that the letter did not disclose the substance of any offers made during the process.
In deciding the outcome, the Judge referred to the following legal principles:
-
Family Procedure Rules 2010 r9.17(1) states that “the FDR appointment must be treated as a meeting for the purpose of discussion and negotiation.”
-
Paragraph 6.2 of Practice Direction 9A to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 emphasises that parties must not disclose the content of such meetings, as confidentiality forms an essential condition for productive discussions. The Court will not admit evidence of anything said or any admission made during an FDR, except in specific, limited circumstances.
The Judge also relied on earlier reported decisions that underline the importance of preserving the confidentiality of FDRs. In those cases, the courts consistently held that any judge who later hears the matter should not know what transpired at the FDR. Nor should that judge investigate why the process failed to produce an agreement.
The Conclusion of the Case
The Judge therefore concluded that the Wife correctly identified words in the Husband’s correspondence that must be removed from the letter for the following reasons:
- To protect the integrity of the pFDR process, the Court prohibits anyone from disclosing the words or conduct of either party during the FDR. Spouses are entitled to expect that the process keeps anything they say or do private. If the parties lose that confidence, the FDR process will suffer.
- The Husband included a self-serving and prejudicial statement in which he blamed the Wife for the premature end of the pFDR hearing.
The purpose of this case is to reinforce the strict confidentiality rules that apply to FDRs and pFDRs. Neither person may disclose anything said or done during the hearing to anyone outside it. We impose confidentiality to encourage openness; because the hearing is private, spouses feel more willing to explore settlement options. If anyone fails to respect this rule, they defeat its entire purpose.
If you are considering alternative dispute resolution or have submitted a financial remedies application to the Court, please contact a member of our team here. We will gladly advise you on the appropriate next steps and explain how we can help.
Can we help you? Please call us on 0333 344 6302 or contact us through our enquiry form. All initial enquiries are free and without obligation.
"*" indicates required fields
