GH v GH

A Financial Dispute Resolution appointment is an integral part of financial remedy proceedings. Under FPR 9.15(4)(b), referral may be dispensed with only for exceptional reasons. An unresolved factual dispute or an uncrystallised party position will not ordinarily justify bypassing the FDR. The FDR judge can evaluate the apparent significance of disputed evidence, give a firm indication, and assist settlement without determining issues finally. Cases in which referral is inappropriate will be very rare.

The appellant challenged interim orders made in financial remedy proceedings. The first-instance judge had dispensed with the FDR appointment and directed that the case proceed directly to a final hearing, relying on an ongoing dispute about the wife’s earning capacity and the lack of crystallisation of her position. The appeal concerned whether those matters amounted to exceptional reasons under FPR 9.15(4)(b).

1. Appeal allowed. The decision to dispense with the FDR appointment was overturned. The parties were directed to attend a court FDR and to file without-prejudice proposals beforehand.
2. FPR 9.15(4) requires the court to direct referral to an FDR appointment unless the first appointment has already been treated as an effective FDR or there are exceptional reasons making referral inappropriate. The words “exceptional reasons” require no gloss or further interpretation.
3. Paragraph 6.1 of PD9A identifies the FDR as a key element of the procedure. The FDR, including a Private FDR, is an integral part of the court process and can facilitate settlement in straightforward and complex cases.
4. An FDR judge may address factual disputes by expressing a view on how the evidence appears and on the relevance of the dispute, without finally determining the facts. The judge can also provide a useful overview where a party’s position is not fully crystallised.
5. The circumstances justifying bypassing an FDR will be very few and far between. The asserted dispute about earning capacity and the absence of a fully crystallised position did not meet that threshold. The need for an FDR was strengthened by the absence of prior non-court dispute resolution, round-table meetings, or exchanged offers.

• High Court (Family Division): The appeal against interim orders was allowed. The order dispensing with the FDR was overturned, and a court FDR was directed.