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 have an expectation that the process is private and that the documents that you disclose within it will be kept confidential. This blog does not cover Transparency in Family Law Proceedings, which will be covered separately.

In theory, the media can apply to attend any hearing, and a Judge will decide upon their presence and what they can report on a case-by-case basis. However, there is one area where they will not be able to report, and that is the Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing.

This is the second of three possible hearings in the financial application process. Increasingly, couples are opting to take these hearings out of court, into a private hearing, where they control all aspects of it, rather than the court. This is advantageous both to escape the court system backlogs, but also because the media have no right to attend the hearings.

What is a (private) financial dispute resolution hearing?

This type of hearing, commonly referred to as a pFDR, is a privatised version of the second court-imposed hearing in financial remedy proceedings, called a financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR). This hearing is focused on helping parties reach a settlement. Unfortunately, the family court system faces significant delays, and therefore, spouses tend to opt to have a pFDR as these can take place a lot sooner given parties pay for the Judge’s time. The Judge in a pFDR is called the Evaluator.

If you would like to know more about the benefits of private FDRs, please read our blog here

All types of FDRs are “Without Prejudice”, which means that everything said, offered or discussed is completely private and cannot be referred to later in Court, or shown to the Judge at a final hearing. At either the pFDR or Court FDR plays a one-off role; the Judge gives guidance on what they think will be a likely settlement, taking into account all the circumstances. A Judge at the FDR must not have any involvement in the case after that. Due to this, all types of FDR hearings are confidential, and spouses feel more able to engage in honest negotiations. They tend to make realistic offers and often put their best offer forward, as that they do not have to show this offer to the Judge if a Final Hearing becomes unavoidable.

The opposite of Without Prejudice is ‘Open’. If something is said or done on an open basis, it can be referred to and relied upon in court; it is not private.

BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236

The principle of confidentiality in (p)FDRs was reviewed by the Court in 2025, in the case of BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236. The Husband (H) and Wife (W) agreed to attend a two-day pFDR in the hopes a settlement could be reached.

On day one of the hearing, the Evaluator (Judge) gave an indication as to a likely outcome, if this matter progressed to a Final Hearing. Following this, the the Wife decided to withdraw from the process and left the building with her legal team. The following day, the Husband wrote to the Wife, on an open basis starting with:

“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.”

“Husbands hopes very much that, despite Wife’s impulsive decision to end the pFDR process so immediately yesterday, some sense will now prevail.”

The wife was unhappy with the above wording being included in open correspondence as it referred to events that took place during the pFDR, which as we know are confidential. On 18 July 2025, the Wife made an application to the Court to have these words removed from the open correspondence. She said that the wording breached the confidentiality expectations of the [p]FDR, and that such correspondence could prejudice the final hearing Judge against the Wife. The Husband’s position was that the wording was simply “logistical details” and the letter made no reference to the details of the offers made during the process.

In deciding the outcome, the Judge referred to several legal principles including the following:

1. FPR (Family Procedure Rules) 2020 r9.17(1) which states “the FDR appointment must be treated as a meeting for the purpose of discussion and negotiation”.
2. Para 6.2 of FPR 2010 PD9A which refers to the non-disclosure of the content of such meetings being vital and it is an essential condition for fruitful discussions. Evidence of anything said or of any admission made during an FDR will not be admissible in evidence, save for specific exceptions.

Additionally, the Judge referred to earlier published cases that dealt with the importance of the confidentiality of FDRs. In those cases, the courts overwhelmingly decided that any future Judge should not know, and should not investigate why, the process did not result in an agreement.

The Judge therefore concluded that the words the Wife highlighted in the Husband’s correspondence (above) should be removed from the letter for the following reasons:

1. To maintain the honesty of the pFDR process, no-one can disclose any of the words or conduct of either party during the FDR. Spouses are entitled to expect that anything they say or do is private. If this confidence does not exist, the FDR process will be damaged.
2. The Husband made a self-serving and prejudicial statement, by blaming the premature ending of the pFDR hearing on the Wife.

What can we learn from BC v BC [2025] EWCF 236?

The purpose of this case is to reinforce the strict confidentiality rules of FDRs and pFDRs. Nothing said or done by either person can be disclosed outside of the hearing. The reason for confidentiality is to encourage openness; given the private nature of the hearing, spouses are much more willing to explore settlement options. Should this rule not be respected, the entire purpose would be defeated.

If you are thinking about engaging in alternative dispute resolution or have made a financial remedies application to Court, please contact a member of our team here who will be happy to advise you as to the appropriate next steps and how we can help you.