The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
While the current system delivers momentum, it can overwhelm parties facing trauma, complexity or cognitive strain. A short pause between stages could allow decisions to be made with ‘insight, dignity and capacity’, improving outcomes.
The authors note many cases settle shortly after the hearing anyway, suggesting the process already works as an ‘information intervention’. Though concerns remain over cost, delay and confidentiality, these are manageable. In the right cases, a structured break may turn failed negotiations into durable agreements.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
