Neglecting family arbitration
HMCTS, we have a problem. That problem lies with the family court and, specifically, financial remedy matters.
First of all, we saw an issue in London when, in September 2025, the lead judge, His Honour Judge Hess, announced changes to the sitting day allocation within the London Financial Remedies Court. For ‘changes’, read ‘cancellations’ (and see Family Court sitting days to be cancelled in 2026 reshuffle). The note from HHJ Hess indicated that, while a final hearing should be listed within eight to nine months of the financial dispute resolution appointment, parties opting for an arbitration may be able to secure an earlier date. Nevertheless, a good deal of disruption was envisaged. The then president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, acknowledged that the plan would cause ‘some unwelcome difficulties’. No doubt the knock-on effect of these difficulties is potentially significant beyond the period of the changes – October 2025 to March 2026 – and is still felt now.
Of course, since 2024, the Family Procedure Rules changes have been introduced (see ‘Exploring non-court dispute resolution’ ). It might have been hoped that non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) would assist with the London court cancellation problem. Whether it did or not is unclear.
In March 2026, the most recent Family Court Statistics Quarterly was published. From October to December 2025, the number of financial applications rose by 13% on the same period in 2024, which itself was up 5% on 2023. Surely, if the changes to NCDR were proving effective, these figures should be going down?
My take is that couples are increasingly turning to court to resolve finances within divorce, despite the 2024 changes. While not all of the 49,067 financial remedy applications in 2025 were made by represented parties, my concern is that family practitioners could be doing significantly more to keep matters out of court.
One underused area of NCDR is arbitration of financial matters on divorce. HHJ Hess recognised its appropriateness, as mentioned above. Indeed, where a court fixture was cancelled at the final hearing stage and at short notice, I was approached to sit as an arbitrator on the matter. Counsel on both sides were fully briefed, brief fees had been deemed, and the case was fully prepared for trial and ready to go.
Family arbitration is flexible. It can be dealt with in various ways, including on a papers-only approach. It is entirely confidential, so the parties can expect utter privacy and will not have to risk the presence of media representatives. It is not fraught with the sort of delays which we are accustomed to experiencing within the court system. Moreover, the parties can select their arbitrator. While there is a cost involved in appointing the arbitrator, I would submit that this is largely insignificant when compared with the costs of waiting months for a trial date.
So, taking all this into account, perhaps the problem is not just with the family court. Rather, it is also with family practitioners who are not trying hard enough to keep matters out of the court system and are paying little more than lip service to the requirements of NCDR introduced in 2024.
Tony Roe
Family partner, Dexter Montague LLP, Reading
SEND reform must be holistic
I have read with interest Eduardo Reyes’ coverage of SEND reform. It reflects something I had been trying to understand before the recent SEND white paper was published: why the system is so often described as ‘broken’.
Working in it and living it, you hear that constantly. Parents feel it, schools feel it, professionals feel it. I wanted to understand what was actually sitting underneath that.
What became clear is that SEND is often treated as the problem when, in reality, it is the point at which wider system failure becomes visible. It sits at the intersection of education, health, social care and wider social pressures. When those systems are fragmented, under-resourced or delayed, that unmet need does not disappear. It accumulates – and SEND is where it surfaces.
To understand, I mapped the system as a whole, which led to a four-pillar framework: funding, accountability, capacity and culture. The central premise is that no meaningful change can be achieved unless all four are addressed together, because strengthening one while neglecting the others simply shifts pressure elsewhere. Looking back at previous attempts to change the system, a consistent pattern emerges. Things are restructured, renamed or reintroduced, but the underlying constraints remain, so the same pressures continue.
This led me to think about what this would actually look like in practice, not as a definitive answer, but as a logical next step. If all four pillars need to work together, then what kind of system could realistically support that?
I set out one possible system, the ABC model, designed to bring those elements together.
If Gazette readers are interested, I’ve put the full piece here.
Reform is necessary, but without addressing the system as a whole, it risks becoming more effective at managing demand than meeting it.
Claire Chapman
SEND professional, SEND adult, parent and former nurse, south-west England
Deregulated disaster
Thank you and congratulations for your report on this bizarre yet shocking story (‘Probate director jailed over missing estate funds’).
Everyone in the profession will be aware how gradual deregulation has led to and enabled this, inevitably to the detriment of the most vulnerable. It is notable that this was not dealt with by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but by contempt proceedings at private expense and risk.
Of course, such events have always occurred, but even in the pre-Clementi era, clients would be protected both by the disciplinary system and the compensation fund.
The public at large is blissfully unaware of how deregulation has changed the system, stemming from Clementi.
The Law Society needs to contact the wider media so that the public is at least aware of these matters. A start might be via everyday consumer experts. It is pointless trying to persuade government directly. Even if politicians had the bandwidth, it would go into the ‘too difficult’ pile or be seen as special pleading.
Name and address supplied
No comments yet