Separating couples with a date set for their financial remedies hearing could find their case moved to a different day or court, or listed at the same time as another case then cancelled due to an insufficient allocation of family court sitting days for the 2025/26 financial year, it has emerged.
The president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, informed representative bodies this week that 13% of family court sitting days for 2025/26 was allocated to the London Financial Remedies Court under a concordat agreed between the lord chancellor and lady chief justice, but this has not proved enough. As a result, planned financial remedies sitting days will have to be cancelled.
McFarlane said judges and staff have drawn up an action plan to 'recalibrate' the list for the rest of the year but acknowledged the plan will cause 'some unwelcome difficulties'.
Cases already been listed will remain listed. However, short hearings could be moved to a different day and court.
Longer hearings will be double listed. Court staff will approach the parties in the ‘primary’ trial two weeks in advance to see if it still needs to go ahead. If it does, the ‘back-up’ trial will be rescheduled within three months, 'though this timescale cannot be guaranteed'. Courts will try to inform parties in the back-up trial at least three working days before the listed start date but will not be responsible for costs incurred getting the postponed trial ready.
The action plan has alarmed family lawyers.
Vanessa Friend, head of family law at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: ‘Switching the date or location of hearings could potentially see clients spending money preparing for a hearing and instructing counsel, only to have it moved and their money wasted. For those with mobility issues, caring or work responsibilities, travelling to another court at short notice may not be realistic and although they may be able to ask to move the hearing online, there is no guarantee this will be agreed.’
On hearings being double listed, Friend said: ‘The nature of litigation means that it is not always possible to know whether you want to vacate a hearing and the requirement to confirm your intention to proceed may increase acrimony between parties.’
Lisa Pepper, a family law partner at Osbornes Law, said: ‘Non-court dispute resolution is increasingly becoming the most sensible option for many. However, the concern is for those who cannot afford options like arbitration, and particularly those who are the victims of a financially controlling partner and need the strong arm of the court to help them achieve a fair financial settlement.'
1 Reader's comment