GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547: Case review

Joanne Wescott

Background to GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547

The critical role that financial dispute resolution plays before divorcing parties go to any final hearing has recently been emphasised by the court. Refusing to engage in non-court dispute resolution could have costs consequences – yet it’s often highly successful and cost-effective.

At Osbornes Law, the specialist financial remedies solicitors have years of experience in helping clients resolve disputes outside of the courtroom and negotiating settlements fairly and effectively.

A Financial dispute resolution hearing (FDR) – which includes a private FDR – is a highly valuable and integral element of the litigation process. The FDR judge is able to provide the parties with a clear indication on the proposals, if they have any merit and if their arguments hold weight.

Often, it is not until an FDR is underway that the parties can clearly see the strength or weakness of their arguments.

Under the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) 9.15(4)(b), the court is required by the rules to direct that a case is referred to an FDR appointment , with three exceptions including: where there are “exceptional reasons which make a referral to a FDR appointment inappropriate”.

Also note that a new FPRr3.4 gives family judges new powers to stay proceedings and require the parties to engage in NCDR – even if the parties don’t agree.

It may sound complicated, but FDR is usually straightforward and can facilitate settlements in a large number of family cases, even in more complex cases.

In the recent financial remedies case GH v GH [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam), the judge Mr Justice Peel succinctly explained the purpose of FDR: “It is to enable the parties to hear… an independent evaluation of the likely outcome, and the risks (in terms of costs, uncertainty, delay and emotional toll) of continued litigation.”

Judge’s orders overturned

The judge at first instance had made interim orders – one of which was dispense with FDR and go straight to a final hearing. However, before a final hearing could take place the judge’s orders were overturned on the basis they were wrong.

The judge had dispensed with FDR because of an ongoing factual dispute around W’s earning capacity; and because her position had not crystallised to the extent that FDR could succeed.

However, on appeal it was the judge’s view that it was very hard to envisage a situation where the FDR should be dispensed with – any such cases would be few and far between. Examples would be where situations where one party has been completely disengaged with proceedings. This case was not one of them.

There appeared to have been no attempt by the parties to try non-court DR or to attend round table meetings; nor had they even exchanged any offers. The parties were therefore ordered to attend a court FDR.

How we can help

This ruling is a reminder that the courts consider it imperative that the parties try to resolve matters without a final hearing where possible. Judges will not hesitate to make an order to that effect unless exceptional circumstances exist.

The divorce team at Osbornes Law are specialists in financial remedies proceedings. For expert advice on FDR, mediation and other forms of non-court DR, contact us by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811