Confidentiality reinforced in private FDR hearings

A Financial Dispute Resolution hearing is a “without prejudice” court hearing in financial remedy proceedings. At the hearing, a judge provides an indication of what they might order if the case were to proceed to a final hearing. The aim of this hearing is to help the parties reach a financial settlement, thereby obviating the need for a final, decisive court order. 

Private FDRs are facilitated by a privately funded evaluator – a specialist barrister, solicitor, or a retired judge – and are a popular option because of the advantages when compared to court-based FDRs. Private FDRs offer greater flexibility, enhanced confidentiality and provide the parties with more control and choice regarding the process. 

In HNW and UHNW cases, the courts are routinely requested by the parties to disapply the court FDR hearing in favour of attending a private FDR before an independent evaluator. 

The benefits of private FDR hearings are widely recognised. Mostyn J said in AS v CS [2021] EWFC 34: “Private FDRs are to be strongly encouraged. They seem to have a higher success rate than in-court FDRs.”

In July 2025, the judgment handed down in BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236 by Mr Justice Peel, lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court, addressed the issue of confidentiality in relation to FDR hearings, as the parties in that case had attended a private FDR. 

The primary issue in BC v BC was whether the Husband (H) was entitled to refer to the Wife (W)’s conduct at the private FDR. H had made reference to W’s conduct in his open proposal, which was made shortly after the private FDR. 

Mr Justice Peel’s judgment determined: “If the integrity of the FDR (and private FDR) process is to be respected, there should be no disclosure of the words or conduct of either party during the FDR. They are entitled to expect that anything they say or do cannot subsequently be referred to. If they cannot be confident of such matters, there is a risk that the FDR process will be undermined. The sanctity of confidentiality should not be eroded.”

Mr Justice Peel ruled that H could not refer to W’s conduct at the private FDR in open correspondence. The judgment in BC v BC therefore reinforces the principle of confidentiality in relation to private FDRs. Notably, Peel J cited Para 6.2 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010: “In order for the FDR to be effective, parties must approach the occasion openly and reserve. Non-disclosure of the content of such meetings is vital and is an essential prerequisite for fruitful discussion directed to the settlement of the dispute between the parties. The FDR appointment is an important part of the settlement process.”