Planned cuts to judicial resources for financial remedies work could bring the proportion of financial remedies work down to 13 per cent; the cuts are expected to cause delays, disruption, and increased costs for families and practitioners. 

The mechanics of a country’s court system may not be the most glamorous topic, but it is essential in understanding how well or badly a jurisdiction can be measured in terms of efficiency and tolerable administration of justice. To discuss this topic this news service introduces Michal Stepniak, an associate in the family team of Simkins. The editors are pleased to share these insights; the usual editorial disclaimers apply. To comment, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

Last week, the president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, informed representative bodies of a significant reduction in judicial resources allocated to financial remedies work for the 2025/26 financial year. The decision, driven by an insufficient allocation of family court sitting days, aims to reduce the proportion of financial remedies work to just 13 per cent of total sitting days. 

While the rationale may be administrative efficiency and prioritising public law cases, the likely consequences for families navigating separation and divorce are profound and troubling and raise concerns as to the everyday person’s access to justice and judicial intervention.

A two-tier justice system emerging
Concerns over the formation of a two-tier justice system have already been raised following cuts to legal aid. With this development it poses the question of whether access to timely and effective resolution is determined by one’s financial capacity.

The situation is particularly dire for individuals facing financially controlling partners. For them, the court process is not just a venue for resolution – it is often the only available “stick” in a relationship where all the “carrots” are held by the breadwinner. 

The reduced availability of judicial resources may leave these vulnerable parties without the support they need to regain their freedom.

The rise of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
In response to these challenges, it is likely that more families who can afford it will turn to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as arbitration, mediation, and voluntary private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearings. In fact, using these alternative forums ought to be encouraged to enable those who cannot afford to pursue ADR to maximise their chances of seeing the inside of a court sooner rather than later. 

As an approach, these forms of ADR can be a power tool when it comes to resolving disputes, offering a more tailored approach that is flexible, faster, and often more personalised to the individuals involved.

Arbitration allows parties to appoint a qualified arbitrator to make binding decisions on financial and children matters. It can be tailored to specific issues and conducted in a manner that suits the parties’ schedules. Importantly, this process is not only confidential but can also be significantly quicker than waiting for a court date. 

By comparison, mediation involves a neutral third-party facilitating discussions to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. This form of ADR is generally less adversarial and more cost-effective than litigation. However, it may not be suitable in cases involving domestic abuse or significant power imbalances. 

Private FDRs have also gained popularity in recent years as a substitute for court-based FDRs. Parties jointly appoint a senior barrister or retired judge to provide a non-binding indication of the likely outcome should the matter progress to a final hearing, encouraging settlement or at least providing a solid base on which to continue negotiation if an agreement is not reached on the day. Unlike court FDRs, which are often rushed due to overloaded schedules, private FDRs allow for thorough preparation and dedicated time for negotiation. It is also becoming increasingly popular to have private FDRs span over two days –the first day for submissions, and the second for a full day of negotiations with a fresh mind rather than rushing to agree terms at the end of the day. 

Cost-effectiveness
While parties may have the resources to fund a lengthy legal battle, many do not want to throw away such sums as part of a protracted and adversarial process. 

Court litigation can spiral into hundreds of thousands (and in some cases, millions) in legal fees and expert costs. The stress from prolonged correspondence should also not be understated. ADR can help to streamline this process and reduce space for conflict, often resulting in significantly lower costs and a timelier result. 

Choosing any form of ADR puts the parties in the driver’s seat and grants them the ability to control the process and avoid endless procedural wrangling, translating to real savings both in costs and emotional burdens.

However, as demand for ADR increases, there is concern amongst many that fees for these services may also rise. 

Private FDRs and arbitration require parties to pay for the time and expertise of the intermediary, which can be prohibitive for lower-income families. While some practitioners are offering more affordable options, the overall trend may lead to increased costs, further marginalising those unable to pay. 

Access to justice at risk
While the more fortunate may not notice this change in judicial capacity, it should not be ignored that most divorcing parties will. The reduction in financial remedies sitting days is not merely an administrative adjustment – it is a fundamental shift in how family justice is delivered. 

For families during separation, the court system is often the only avenue for resolving financial disputes. Delays and cancellations prolong emotional distress, leaving parties feeling as though they are stuck in limbo, waiting to start a new chapter in their lives as an independent [person].

The move towards ADR, while beneficial in many respects, must be accompanied by safeguards to ensure accessibility and affordability. Without such measures, the justice system risks becoming inaccessible to those who need it most.

Looking ahead
The cuts to judicial resources for financial remedies work represent a significant challenge for the family justice system. While ADR offers promising alternatives, it cannot fully replace the role of the courts, especially for vulnerable parties. 

Policymakers must therefore urgently address the consequences of these changes, ensuring that justice remains accessible, timely, and equitable for all families – regardless of their financial means.

For the wealthy, however, divorce is not just a legal process. It is a business decision, a reputational risk, and a personal crossroads. For these individuals, ADR can offer a discreet, efficient, and effective alternative to the courtroom stress. By choosing ADR, one can more quickly seek to protect what matters most: whether it is their privacy, wealth, or just peace of mind. 

Now, more than ever, it is the strategic choice for those that can afford it.