Changes to Financial Remedy Proceedings

In January this year the way that Financial Remedy Proceedings are dealt with by the courts has significantly changed. Ranging from the introduction of Allocation Questionnaires, to the new requirement for Composite Summaries, Asset Schedules and Chronologies.  The raft of new guidance issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess is extensive, and comes with the aim of enhancing efficiency within financial remedy proceedings, enabling each case to be allotted an appropriate share of the court’s resources, and improving access to justice for litigants.

This blog tracks some of the key changes within the financial remedy procedure, for both professionals and clients to take note of as we head into this new era.

Allocation:

Under the new guidance, every case will be allocated to an individual judge at the earliest opportunity. The allocated judge will depend on the case’s complexity, and they will either conduct all the hearings up to and including the final hearing (apart from the FDR), or will conduct all the hearings up to and including the FDR. If the FDR is unsuccessful, then further hearings will be allocated to another judge.

For a case to be appropriately allocated, the Applicant to the divorce must file an Allocation Questionnaire- either on paper or through the online portal when making a digital application. At this point, the Applicant should seek to consult the Respondent for the purposes of completing the questionnaire.

First Appointment

First Appointments will now be listed for 45 minutes, or 60 minutes if the case is categorised as ‘complex.’

Two weeks before the hearing, the parties must file a joint valuation of the family home, file and serve no more than three sets of property particulars, as well as a joint and brief indication of their respective borrowing capacities. A questionnaire for each party must also be submitted.

If it is impossible for the parties to provide either a joint valuation and mortgage capacity statement, both parties must file separate documents and be prepared to explain their reasoning to the court.

In addition to these documentation changes, a day before the First Appointment it is necessary for the Applicant to file a composite case summary and composite schedule of assets using the new templates as provided within the guidance.

First Appointment hearings may now also be used as an FDR so increasing efficiency, but as expected it is necessary for the court to be notified of this in advance so a longer in-person hearing can be accommodated for. Likewise, final hearing dates may also be set at the First Appointment.

FDR Hearings:

FDR hearings will now be listed for between 1-1.5 hours, and in the morning. However, advisers must remain available for the full day which to be fair we believe many already do.

As with the First Appointment, the Applicant must file an updated composite case summary, schedule of assets and chronology, again using the precedents provided in the guidance. This means that the parties to a divorce must collaborate before the hearing to produce these key documents- it is unacceptable for the court to be provided with competing assets and chronologies.

Final Hearings

Every final hearing listed for over 3 days must now be subject to a Pre-Trial Review, heard four weeks prior to the final hearing, and conducted by the same judge. It is at this review that a timetable for the final hearing is to be prepared, which must allow reasonable time for judicial reading and judgment, stick to 30 minutes for opening, and not include any time for any evidence-in-chief.  The purpose of this timetable is to streamline and focus the final hearing, where advocates are expected to comply with strict adherence to the schedule. If the final hearing is schedules for less than 3 days long, the timetable must be created at the failed FDR directions stage.

As is the case for the First Appointment and FDR, both parties must file updated ES1 and ES2 forms 7 days prior to the Final Hearing, with any disagreements clearly denoted for the attention of the judge. It is worth noting that if any advocates fail to comply with the provisions of the agreed schedule of assets, case summary or chronology, or if they fail to comply with new rules regarding the length and content of position statements, they will risk an order being made against them which disallows a proportion of their fees.

What do these changes mean?

Head of our Family Team, Sarah Power commented “It is fair to say that these changes represent the biggest shift within the financial remedy procedure for many years, with the clear aim of streamlining proceedings for both our clients and legal professionals. It will be interesting to see whether the ‘front-ending’ of work brought about by these changes results in much needed efficiencies within the court system and ultimately gives clients the best opportunity to settle their case early on.”

Perhaps most notably, the changes signify the end of the practice whereby each side produces their own bespoke asset schedule (often in differing formats!), requiring the judge to mix and match information where some asset values are agreed and others aren’t. It is another sign as well that there is a real push towards greater collaboration between parties which can only be a good thing. This will hopefully contribute to further smooth-running of the service, as clients will have pre-agreed points to work through within proceedings, and as such free up judicial resources to help speed up what can currently be a lengthy process with waiting times for Financial Dispute Resolution Appointments and Final Hearings of up to 6 months in some areas.

If you’re in the process of divorcing, it is important that you reach a financial settlement as well. For advice on the court process and alternative ways of negotiating an agreement, contact our family law experts on 0800 015 0340 or family@chadlaw.co.uk  We offer a free, confidential half hour appointment – contact us to arrange an appointment.