I know my x wont settle at FDR so wanted to leave a few financial contributions till final hearing, if possible I wanted to add them on the narrativie affidavit.
is that something i can do

thank you

dawn
xx

Hi Dawn

You should put your case at the earliest opportunity, even if only to avoid the line of questioning as to why you have suddenly come up with other contributions etc.

Also, not having the full picture will effect the indication a judge gives at FDR turning it into a wasted exercise.

If you truely believe it will not settle at FDR you can leapfrog it straight to a hearing with agreement from the otherside to save yourself the angst. You would have to ensure that you were confident you could agree a comprehensive set of directions to get you to FH if you wanted to go down that line.

Amanda

Hi Amanda,

I have had the regrettable experience of getting ao FH. I am still puzzled by the fact the nothing that is discussed at FDR, including any indication by the FDR Judge can be brought to the FH - do you know what the reason is for this?

Would it not be helpful for the FH judge to have at least a guideline from the FDR judge as to where the percentage split may lie?

Just curious! It also may help others as they may not know this is the case - I certainly didn't until much later on in the process.

Thank you.

Hi Elizabeth

You are quite right, everything that goes on at FDR and any documents prepared specfically relating to offers etc is not known by the FH judge, and the FDR judge is excluded from hearing the FH.

This is because the FDR is a without prejudice negotiation hearing - it is designed to be open to encourage settlement, but if settlement is not reached the parties are not bound by what has gone on that day.

The reasons behind it are many and it is only in the last 8 years or so we have had FDRs - before then it was directions hearings and final hearings only...and the process was even more expensive than it is now.

The main point of bringing in the FDR was to attempt the truncate the process and bring it to a cheaper end quicker...which does work in a lot of cases (in 2006 22,271 cases settled at FDR or shortly after, and only 6221 cases out of 111,955 applicatons went to a final hearing), however, it was felt that if the parties were bound going forward by the negotiations then neither would negotiate openly through fear of being bound.

The final hearing judge does not need the indication of the FDR judge to know where settlement lies, as the FH judge can determine that for himself. The biggest problem we have of course is that in every ancillary relief case there is a "band of discretion" - ie a band within which the case can be settled and as long as the settlement or judgement is within the band it is not unreasonable. This is why you can get an indication at FDR but the FH judgement is vasly different - the two judges can be at opposite ends of the band.

The second important point as to why the view of the FDR judge does not go forward is that the FH judge is the one hearing the evidence - which can change matters in many cases as the FDR judge only has the papers to go on. Whereas the FDR is a rough and ready mathmatical calculation, the FH is more considered and the facts of the case really then matter.

Hope that helps

Amanda

Thank you Amanda for your very concise and informative reply this is all retrospective for me, as I said but I appreciate you taking the time to reply which I am sure will help others understand what I did not when I was going through the process.

Thanks again.

Elizabeth

If he won't settle, why? Are you taking the micky? Or is he?

Divorcelawyer, your thoughts on this as it may be relevant to me. Might a carefully constructed Open Offer before FDR be appropriate here. E.g. possibility of costs if it is ignored and end result after FH much the same. Also, how often will a reasonable Open Offers, unreasonably rejected and then affirmed at FH prompt a costs award.

5

5t3v3


I am afraid Amanda (DL) will not be answering any posts for the time being ...

Here is my (non-legal) take on it.

Unfortunately the costs question is no longer what it used to be - ie that if the courts ordred a settlement in line with an offer previously made then costs would be awarded against the party who refused to settle. The only way costs can be awarded now is if there has been litigation misconduct. There have been various posts on costs - do have a search for them.

I would always suggest that an offer made at or before FDR takes into account the potential cost of going to a Final Hearing - ie you may be prepared to offer a few K more to save the £15k or so it can cost to get to a fully repped FH.

This is not a fair situation; it seems totally wrong that an unreasonable stbx can force you through the courts in this way - but that is how it is at the moment . It does seem that the prospect of having costs awarded against a party who refuses to settle despite being made reasonable offers would be a deterrent. Unfortunately the only people who win in a situation like this are the lawyers - even the good guys (like DL) who really do not want to take your money in such circumstances but have no option if you are being forced all the way to a FH... as I, and many others on here are.

Hadenoughnow